OT - The coming recession

[Bruce S]

An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
nearing a recession. Both of the studies are independent of the coming
fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
facing a very difficult year ahead.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2012/11/10/indicators_flash_recession_warning/page/full/

By the way, Hank, don't bother looking - you wouldn't understand anyway.


--
Bruce

Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one
else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer

[gregz]

Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
> nearing a recession. Both of the studies are independent of the coming
> fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
> facing a very difficult year ahead.
>
> http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2012/11/10/indicators_flash_recession_warning/page/full/
>
> By the way, Hank, don't bother looking - you wouldn't understand anyway.
>

http://www.doobybrain.com/2012/11/07/how-the-office-of-the-presidency-will-age-barack-obama-in-the-next-4-years/

Greg

[Jan Orme]

On Nov 11, 8:30 pm, gregz <ze...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
> > nearing a recession.  Both of the studies are independent of the coming
> > fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
> > facing a very difficult year ahead.
>

> >http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2012/11/...

>
> > By the way, Hank, don't bother looking - you wouldn't understand anyway.
>

> http://www.doobybrain.com/2012/11/07/how-the-office-of-the-presidency...
>
> Greg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seems about right, but I was figuring the hair to be solid gray on the
Liar In Chief. Serious anklebiters snapping at his sorry ass the whole
way ready to jump on his next lie and cowardly deed.

Jan

[Don Lampson]

On Nov 11, 7:49 pm, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
> nearing a recession.  Both of the studies are independent of the coming
> fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
> facing a very difficult year ahead.
>

> http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2012/11/...

>
> By the way, Hank, don't bother looking - you wouldn't understand anyway.
>
> --
> Bruce
>
> Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one
> else can see.   Arthur Schopenhauer

That's just hogwash in a right wing E-Zine to give the sore losers
something to gloat about! Do you believe a UC Riverside college
professor has any real inside information about the economy that other
economists don't have? HawHawHaw!

Just when is this recession going to begin besides "possibly soon"?

Adam Smith

[nothermark]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:50:21 -0800 (PST), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
wrote:

More like trying to make everything that happens into a lie or
cawardly deed. That is what you anklebiters do.

[Bruce S]

You don't have to be an economist to figure out that a recession is
coming. Real unemployment is going up - and that is based on the
government's numbers. Real income is going down - and that is also
based on the government's numbers. GNP is raising so slowly that
stopping would almost be unnoticed (and that is the definition of
recession). Poverty numbers are going up - along with people receiving
government assistance to help them thru that poverty. Europe is
entering a recession, and our economy depends on theirs.

Every economic indicator suggests that our economy in in trouble -
what's that old saying about not having to be special to see the writing
on the wall?

As to how soon, because of the way economists define the start of a
recession, probably not till after the first of the year, and it won't
be official until March or April.

[Don Lampson]

Guess we'll have to wait a few months to find out if your prediction
is valid, won't we? Do you think Romney's election would have
changed this?

Alfalfa Smith

[Bruce S]

On 11/12/2012 2:05 PM, Don Lampson wrote:
> On Nov 12, 11:08 am, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/12/2012 1:31 AM, Don Lampson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 11, 7:49 pm, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> An interesting article with a couple studies suggesting that we are
>>>> nearing a recession. Both of the studies are independent of the coming
>>>> fiscal cliff and indicate that I am right in believeing that 0bama is
>>>> facing a very difficult year ahead.
>>

>>>> http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2012/11/....

The recession is virtually guaranteed, the real difference is that it
would have been shorter and shallower with Romney in the White House and
Republicans in the Senate. Hell, 0bama still hasn't gotten us back to
where we were before the last recession - with another coming, we will
never recover as long as Democrats are in control. You only have to
look at the 1930s to see an example of what happens when liberals are in
charge during a recession.

[nothermark]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:08:14 -0800, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It looks like an easy pick as we have been cycling recessions as far
back as his graph goes. The longest period without one was when slick
willy was running things. ;-))

[Bruce S]

Well, that's quite a change of opinion for you since a week before the
election. At that time, you claimed that the economy was doing so good
that when Romney claimed he would increase employment by 250,000 a month
it was no big deal because it was going to happen anyway. Now you say
we age going into a recession - what changed?

[nothermark]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:38:02 -0800, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

What I said was the number Romney promised was the trend currently in
place. In that light if Romney managed changes they should result in
an additional number of jobs above the 12 million or whatever it was.
I don't think I ever predicted Obama.

[Bruce S]

On 11/12/2012 4:58 PM, nothermark wrote:

>> >Well, that's quite a change of opinion for you since a week before the
>> >election. At that time, you claimed that the economy was doing so good
>> >that when Romney claimed he would increase employment by 250,000 a month
>> >it was no big deal because it was going to happen anyway. Now you say
>> >we age going into a recession - what changed?

> What I said was the number Romney promised was the trend currently in
> place. In that light if Romney managed changes they should result in
> an additional number of jobs above the 12 million or whatever it was.
> I don't think I ever predicted Obama.

You can't have it both ways - either it was going to happen "anyway" so
that nothing Romney did caused it, and thus it will happen for 0bama,
or; we are going into a recession.

Make up your mind - are we going into a recession, or are we going to
have 250,000 new jobs per month?

[nothermark]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:43:56 -0800, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/12/2012 4:58 PM, nothermark wrote:
>
>>> >Well, that's quite a change of opinion for you since a week before the
>>> >election. At that time, you claimed that the economy was doing so good
>>> >that when Romney claimed he would increase employment by 250,000 a month
>>> >it was no big deal because it was going to happen anyway. Now you say
>>> >we age going into a recession - what changed?
>
>> What I said was the number Romney promised was the trend currently in
>> place. In that light if Romney managed changes they should result in
>> an additional number of jobs above the 12 million or whatever it was.
>> I don't think I ever predicted Obama.
>
>You can't have it both ways - either it was going to happen "anyway" so
>that nothing Romney did caused it, and thus it will happen for 0bama,
>or; we are going into a recession.
>
>Make up your mind - are we going into a recession, or are we going to
>have 250,000 new jobs per month?

You are the one who brags about their reading comprehension. You can
figure out what I said.

If you want my perspective you can go back and find multiple instances
of me saying that I do not think the President has much control over
jobs. Look to the Congress for the responsible party.

This has been particularly true for the last 4 years due to the
Conservatives dog in the manger attitude.

[Bruce S]

So you take two mutually exclusive positions and then refuse to support
your faulty logic? I'm not surprised at that - after all there is no
defense for saying that the economy is so good that nothing Romney does
means anything, but then saying that the economy is so bad that 0bama is
not to blame for any of it.

So, is the economy so good that we will see 250,000 new jobs a month
during 0bama's next term, or is it so bad we are going to have a recession?

Or will you admit that the things the President instructs his
administration to do really does have an impact on the economy?

0bama has screwed up the economy for four years and is set to screw it
up for another four. A change of leadership would have changed that.

[nothermark]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:58:36 -0800, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

I said that if Romney makes any changes he needs to exceed 12 million
jobs to give the changes meaning as the trend is to create 12 million
jobs assuming nothing else happens. That has nothing to do with
Obama. It is all about the destructive changes you want him to make.

>
>So, is the economy so good that we will see 250,000 new jobs a month
>during 0bama's next term, or is it so bad we are going to have a recession?

No guess from me as it would be a guess. If nothing happens the folks
that study this stuff say the jobs will come. The gotcha is what the
Congress will do about the fiscal cliff and what the business
community will do about what the Congress does. Way too many
variables for me to predict.

>
>Or will you admit that the things the President instructs his
>administration to do really does have an impact on the economy?

As if any President has been able to order the Congress around. Read
your history. Once Washington left office the politics started.

>
>0bama has screwed up the economy for four years and is set to screw it
>up for another four. A change of leadership would have changed that.

Probably not, though I think most of the changes you champion would be
detrimental if we tried to roll back to the bad old days.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:58:36 -0800, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

--------------------------

But Bruce, you are neglecting facts yourself.

The American public knows that the economy is NOT good.

However, the American public has not forgotten how good the economy
was during Clinton and how BAD it got during Bush.

It is fairly obvious that no one thinks the economy is booming.
However, the American public knows that as a nation we dodged a bullet
when we did not go into a full scale depression after the Bush
Administration. I suspect the American people are happy about that.

American voters just did not find Romney believable. I doubt if any
of the wing nuts believed Romney either. "I am not going to raise
anyones taxes, I am going to reduce spending, I am going to increase
Defense Spending by $2-TRILLION and I am going to create a zillion
jobs with my secret plan".

The folks that hated Obama lapped up that message.

However, as bad as the economy is the majority of voters decided that
they would rather stick with Obama than risk having someone spewing
that Bull Shit in office.

That is just the way it is.

mike
--

Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/

[Larry]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:09:08 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:

>If you want my perspective you can go back and find multiple instances
>of me saying that I do not think the President has much control over
>jobs. Look to the Congress for the responsible party.
>
>This has been particularly true for the last 4 years due to the
>Conservatives dog in the manger attitude.

The Conservatives talked OweBama into killing the pipeline and all the
jobs it would have created, right?

[Bruce S]

No you didn't. What you said was that you heard on the radio that the
economy was growing and that the 12 million jobs Romney claimed he would
create would happen regardless of what he did. If that claim was true,
it would happen regardless of who got elected. Unfortunately, that
claim was not true.

The reality is that if Romney had been elected, he would have made
changes to the economy that would have produced those jobs - with 0bama
in office, we will continue to see negative job growth for the next four
years. Of course, that will make you happy.

>> So, is the economy so good that we will see 250,000 new jobs a month
>> during 0bama's next term, or is it so bad we are going to have a recession?
>
> No guess from me as it would be a guess. If nothing happens the folks
> that study this stuff say the jobs will come. The gotcha is what the
> Congress will do about the fiscal cliff and what the business
> community will do about what the Congress does. Way too many
> variables for me to predict.

The recession is coming now, regardless of the fiscal cliff. 0bama has
guaranteed that.

>> Or will you admit that the things the President instructs his
>> administration to do really does have an impact on the economy?
>
> As if any President has been able to order the Congress around. Read
> your history. Once Washington left office the politics started.

Since when is the congress the only part of the administration. It is
the EPA, OSHA, 0bamacare, and others controlled by the office of the
president that are determined to screw up the economy.

>> 0bama has screwed up the economy for four years and is set to screw it
>> up for another four. A change of leadership would have changed that.
>
> Probably not, though I think most of the changes you champion would be
> detrimental if we tried to roll back to the bad old days.

You think permitting oil drilling would be detrimental?
You think approving the pipeline would be detrimental?
You think rolling back EPA regs to the levels that brought us the
cleanest air in a century would be detrimental?

[Bruce S]

Those voters, including you, were wrong. And if you actually took the
time to look at how the economy was actually doing under Bush, you would
have noticed that even at the end, it was better than it was when he
took office (something 0bama can't say so far). The bursting housing
bubble cause a routine recession and we could have been out of that
recession and back on the road to prosperity with a competent president.
As it is, we will still be dealing with this stagnant, lifeless
economy four years from now.

[nothermark]

In the great scheme of things a drop in the proverbial bucket. By the
same token getting the Congress to authorize all those public works
jobs folks whine about were also another drop.

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article <50a2d9c9$0$37030$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com>,

Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> Those voters, including you, were wrong. And if you actually took the
> time to look at how the economy was actually doing under Bush, you would
> have noticed that even at the end, it was better than it was when he
> took office (something 0bama can't say so far). The bursting housing
> bubble cause a routine recession and we could have been out of that
> recession and back on the road to prosperity with a competent president.
> As it is, we will still be dealing with this stagnant, lifeless
> economy four years from now.

Em, apparently you were not listening to the "real" economists (as
opposed to party hacks from either party) that directly contradict you.
They said, repeated;y in 2008 (before the election) that the recovery
would start not start earlier then 2010, it would be one of the slowest
on record and that any significant job growth would not occur until 2013
or 2014.

That was without regard to who won the election.

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

[Bruce S]

On 11/13/2012 4:31 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> In article <50a2d9c9$0$37030$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Those voters, including you, were wrong. And if you actually took the
>> time to look at how the economy was actually doing under Bush, you would
>> have noticed that even at the end, it was better than it was when he
>> took office (something 0bama can't say so far). The bursting housing
>> bubble cause a routine recession and we could have been out of that
>> recession and back on the road to prosperity with a competent president.
>> As it is, we will still be dealing with this stagnant, lifeless
>> economy four years from now.
>
> Em, apparently you were not listening to the "real" economists (as
> opposed to party hacks from either party) that directly contradict you.
> They said, repeated;y in 2008 (before the election) that the recovery
> would start not start earlier then 2010, it would be one of the slowest
> on record and that any significant job growth would not occur until 2013
> or 2014.
>
> That was without regard to who won the election.

Keynesian economists following a Keynesian policy of government
intervention. If we had leadership that believed in free market
capitalism, it would have been a lot shallower and a lot shorter.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:37:47 -0800, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

--------------------------


Bruce I know that you listen to and get your information from
infallible sources. We are constantly reminded some of you as to
which sources have "true knowledge & facts" vs, those sources that
just repeat the party line.

Let me be the first to break the news to you....... Your sources have
been wrong, dead wrong. It might be time for you to change sources to
one that at least gets some things right.

You have been drinking the kool aid for so long you couldn't even tell
when they dropped the turd in it.

[Vito]

"Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote ...

| The recession is virtually guaranteed, the real difference is that it
| would have been shorter and shallower with Romney in the White House and
| Republicans in the Senate. Hell, 0bama still hasn't gotten us back to
| where we were before the last recession - with another coming, we will
| never recover as long as Democrats are in control. You only have to
| look at the 1930s to see an example of what happens when liberals are in
| charge during a recession.

You are prolly right. Too bad the GOP had to sacrifice common fiscal
sense on the altar of fundamentalist nuttiness.

[nothermark]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:34:04 -0800, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>

How is it not true?

If you were not so busy ankle biting you would realize that we will
not know what happened until 4 years from now.

>
>The reality is that if Romney had been elected, he would have made
>changes to the economy that would have produced those jobs - with 0bama
>in office, we will continue to see negative job growth for the next four
>years. Of course, that will make you happy.

We don't have negative job growth now. What we have is recovery from
the mess that started under Bush and an idiotic interpretation of the
data by folks more interested in picking a political fight than
understanding what is happening.

That is not so say we could not do better. The problem is the the
proposed Romney moves would increase job exports on one hand and screw
both the general health of the country and working conditions on the
other.

>
>>> So, is the economy so good that we will see 250,000 new jobs a month
>>> during 0bama's next term, or is it so bad we are going to have a recession?
>>
>> No guess from me as it would be a guess. If nothing happens the folks
>> that study this stuff say the jobs will come. The gotcha is what the
>> Congress will do about the fiscal cliff and what the business
>> community will do about what the Congress does. Way too many
>> variables for me to predict.
>
>The recession is coming now, regardless of the fiscal cliff. 0bama has
>guaranteed that.

Nothing like a true believer. If your prodictor is correct Romney
could not stop it either. Your problem is your focus on screwing your
fellow man.

>
>>> Or will you admit that the things the President instructs his
>>> administration to do really does have an impact on the economy?
>>
>> As if any President has been able to order the Congress around. Read
>> your history. Once Washington left office the politics started.
>
>Since when is the congress the only part of the administration. It is
>the EPA, OSHA, 0bamacare, and others controlled by the office of the
>president that are determined to screw up the economy.

all written and passed by the Congress. You cannot escape that. The
assholes in Congress cannot get away from it either. Nor can they get
away from the fact that they could change any of it any time they can
get the votes.

>
>
>>> 0bama has screwed up the economy for four years and is set to screw it
>>> up for another four. A change of leadership would have changed that.
>>
>> Probably not, though I think most of the changes you champion would be
>> detrimental if we tried to roll back to the bad old days.
>
>You think permitting oil drilling would be detrimental?
>You think approving the pipeline would be detrimental?
>You think rolling back EPA regs to the levels that brought us the
>cleanest air in a century would be detrimental?

I think the pipeline will get built.

I think the drilling bans are asking for trouble as sooner or later
the oil will be drilled and pumped.

I think we should mandate all products sold in this country be made in
factories that meet OSHA and EPA regulations. A lower price is not an
excuse for killing workers and poisoning the planet.

[Larry]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:27:59 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>

Have you never heard that, a journey of a thousand miles starts with a
single step? It needs to start somewhere. Under OweBama it is
starting with, a large number of companies laying off full time
workers and hiring part time workers.

Darden Restaurants owns and operates 1,936 restaurant locations
throughout North America and has more than 180,000 employees. The
company plans to do away with full time wait staff and hire lots of
part timers.

I understand that you consider these a drop in the bucket but multiply
these numbers by thousands of companies and you get an overflowing
bucket.

Do some research and check the numbers yourself.

[nothermark]

That trend started somewhere back around Reagan or Bush 1. I'm not
even sure it has accelerated any. It is a result of the Union busting
and the "maximize profits" movements in management. It is also why I
favor a large scale approach to things like health care. I would drop
the company size limit in a heartbeat.

In terms of Darden If I was their competition I would be looking at
putting out a contract on their upper management. I would prefer that
to having to screw my workers to match.

What will be interesting is how they plan on living up to this:

http://www.darden.com/careers/restaurants.asp

[Old guy]

Mark is close this time, but still wrong, just close...
During the last of the Carter term the NLRB and COWPS (Council on Wage
and Price Stability) made reducing benefits, shortening hours and laying
off employees much more involved. There were suddenly offices set up to
help employees sue employers, and so it became de rigueur to not hire
anybody to a position stated as full time, make sure that all employees
have a copy of an employee manual stating policies, and then getting the
three letters of reprimand into the jacket of anyone that might become a
problem.

This is when the outside contract companies got their start. I call one
up and say I'm looking for an estimator (or anything else). They would
send over candidates based on my outline. If I wanted one, then THEY
hired him and detailed him to work at my location under my direction. I
paid a small fortune for this, but if he worked out, then after six
months, I could pick up his contract and make him my employee. If, by
the same token, he did not, for any reason at all, all I had to do was
pick up the phone an call my contact and say I no longer needed him. He
would get a call from the XYZ agency saying come and pick up your last
check!!! If he asked them WFT, all they could say was that his
services were no longer needed. He could not ask us because we did not
employ him we were just buying his services on an as needed basis.

Please Mark Read some history.

The old guy

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:30 -0500, Old guy <o...@nospam.net> wrote:

>This is when the outside contract companies got their start. I call one
>up and say I'm looking for an estimator (or anything else). They would
>send over candidates based on my outline. If I wanted one, then THEY
>hired him and detailed him to work at my location under my direction. I
>paid a small fortune for this, but if he worked out, then after six
>months, I could pick up his contract and make him my employee. If, by
>the same token, he did not, for any reason at all, all I had to do was
>pick up the phone an call my contact and say I no longer needed him. He
>would get a call from the XYZ agency saying come and pick up your last
>check!!! If he asked them WFT, all they could say was that his
>services were no longer needed. He could not ask us because we did not
>employ him we were just buying his services on an as needed basis.
>

>The old guy
-----------------------------
That is exactly what happened and continues to happen to this day.

Of course it is good for the company. There is nothing worse than
dealing with a bad employee. It eats up time and resources.

[nothermark]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:30 -0500, Old guy <o...@nospam.net> wrote:

I read a lot of history but here is always more to read! Thanks for
the correction. I knew it was some time back there.

The only minor quibble I have is that the contract houses were around
long before that. I worked with them and for them as far back as
1970. The big difference I recall was that before the early 80's
recession. Contractors were paid more than normal workers to cover
their benefit package. After the recession around here the price
dropped to less than a normal direct employee. That probably
coincided with the big increase in contract workers you talk about. I
worked contract to direct a couple of times after that. I also
watched folks get discouraged because they would not work contract and
nobody would hire them direct. Sad.

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article <h828a8h95e8qme0p6...@4ax.com>,

Mike our old employer started doing that a few years ago. They would
hire techs/programs/etc via one of several companies. If the hire worked
out, and the budget would support it, they would then convert them to a
Government worker. If not (like budget) they were much easier to
"downsize" them then RIF.

At one point I had to recommend that we "downsize" all contract
programers in out department (well, but one), really hurt as several
were friends and I thought well of them, but budgets are budgets....

[Larry]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:28:02 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:

snip

>>Darden Restaurants owns and operates 1,936 restaurant locations
>>throughout North America and has more than 180,000 employees. The
>>company plans to do away with full time wait staff and hire lots of
>>part timers.
>>
>>I understand that you consider these a drop in the bucket but multiply
>>these numbers by thousands of companies and you get an overflowing
>>bucket.
>>
>>Do some research and check the numbers yourself.
>
>That trend started somewhere back around Reagan or Bush 1. I'm not
>even sure it has accelerated any.

Do you have a radio or a tv in your house? It is all over the news.

>It is a result of the Union busting

Have you ever been in a union? I have been on both sides as a union
employee and 2 years later as management representative at the
bargaining table. I have had to deal with the outrageous demands
that have caused them to slowly disappear in America.

>and the "maximize profits" movements in management. It is also why I
>favor a large scale approach to things like health care. I would drop
>the company size limit in a heartbeat.

I do not dout that for a second. Judging by you past posts you want
the boss to pay for the healthcare, cell phone, car, housing, and
probably the food the worker eats, even if he does not bring profit to
the company.

>In terms of Darden If I was their competition I would be looking at
>putting out a contract on their upper management.

Why? Because they figured out how to stay in business and take all
your customers!

>I would prefer that
>to having to screw my workers to match.
>

Thats great. When are you opening you business and doing what you
prefer?

[Vito]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote
| Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
Argueing over which is the bigger threat, Congress or the White House, is
like argueing which shark circleing you is worse - the 10 footer or the 12
footer.

[nothermark]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:22:07 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:28:02 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>>Darden Restaurants owns and operates 1,936 restaurant locations
>>>throughout North America and has more than 180,000 employees. The
>>>company plans to do away with full time wait staff and hire lots of
>>>part timers.
>>>
>>>I understand that you consider these a drop in the bucket but multiply
>>>these numbers by thousands of companies and you get an overflowing
>>>bucket.
>>>
>>>Do some research and check the numbers yourself.
>>
>>That trend started somewhere back around Reagan or Bush 1. I'm not
>>even sure it has accelerated any.
>
>Do you have a radio or a tv in your house? It is all over the news.
>
>>It is a result of the Union busting
>
>Have you ever been in a union? I have been on both sides as a union
>employee and 2 years later as management representative at the
>bargaining table. I have had to deal with the outrageous demands
>that have caused them to slowly disappear in America.

My father was a Union rep most of his work life. I have been in a
union 3 or 4 times but out of one more. I know the issues from both
sides also. That is why I view Union and management in the same
light. Both are far from perfect.

>
>>and the "maximize profits" movements in management. It is also why I
>>favor a large scale approach to things like health care. I would drop
>>the company size limit in a heartbeat.
>
>I do not dout that for a second. Judging by you past posts you want
>the boss to pay for the healthcare, cell phone, car, housing, and
>probably the food the worker eats, even if he does not bring profit to
>the company.

Most of it is what one does with one's salary. That leaves a worker
choice in what they need.

The only axe I have to grind in health care. We all need it sooner or
later so we might as well all pay for it all the time and use it when
we need it.

>
>>In terms of Darden If I was their competition I would be looking at
>>putting out a contract on their upper management.
>
>Why? Because they figured out how to stay in business and take all
>your customers!

They would stay in business anyway if they have a well run system at
decent margins. I just do not see starting a race to the bottom. That
is what you champion.

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article <50a2ed1d$0$34186$c3e8da3$5e5e...@news.astraweb.com>,

Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/13/2012 4:31 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> > In article <50a2d9c9$0$37030$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com>,
> > Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Those voters, including you, were wrong. And if you actually took the
> >> time to look at how the economy was actually doing under Bush, you would
> >> have noticed that even at the end, it was better than it was when he
> >> took office (something 0bama can't say so far). The bursting housing
> >> bubble cause a routine recession and we could have been out of that
> >> recession and back on the road to prosperity with a competent president.
> >> As it is, we will still be dealing with this stagnant, lifeless
> >> economy four years from now.
> >
> > Em, apparently you were not listening to the "real" economists (as
> > opposed to party hacks from either party) that directly contradict you.
> > They said, repeated;y in 2008 (before the election) that the recovery
> > would start not start earlier then 2010, it would be one of the slowest
> > on record and that any significant job growth would not occur until 2013
> > or 2014.
> >
> > That was without regard to who won the election.
>
> Keynesian economists following a Keynesian policy of government
> intervention. If we had leadership that believed in free market
> capitalism, it would have been a lot shallower and a lot shorter.

Ah Voodoo economnics

[Larry]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:54:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:

>
>My father was a Union rep most of his work life. I have been in a
>union 3 or 4 times but out of one more. I know the issues from both
>sides also. That is why I view Union and management in the same
>light. Both are far from perfect.
>

Correct, you will never find perfect when dealing with people. Please
tell me what the union boss has done to deserve his salary, usually 5
to 20 times the salary of the union dues paying members. And then, to
add insult to injury, he does not even pay union dues!

>>
>>>and the "maximize profits" movements in management. It is also why I
>>>favor a large scale approach to things like health care. I would drop
>>>the company size limit in a heartbeat.
>>
>>I do not dout that for a second. Judging by you past posts you want
>>the boss to pay for the healthcare, cell phone, car, housing, and
>>probably the food the worker eats, even if he does not bring profit to
>>the company.
>
>Most of it is what one does with one's salary. That leaves a worker
>choice in what they need.
>
>The only axe I have to grind in health care. We all need it sooner or
>later so we might as well all pay for it all the time and use it when
>we need it.

I have had coverage from one company since I started working. I have
more than likely paid a lot more in the 50 years than I used so far.
The company also had to pay a part. So the company makes a profit.
But I am covered in case of a major problem.

>>
>>>In terms of Darden If I was their competition I would be looking at
>>>putting out a contract on their upper management.
>>
>>Why? Because they figured out how to stay in business and take all
>>your customers!
>
>They would stay in business anyway if they have a well run system at
>decent margins. I just do not see starting a race to the bottom. That
>is what you champion.
>

I only champion trying to get government out of the way of people
trying to earn a living. But they want to steal money from the
workers so they can give it to the "lifetime liberals" for votes.

[Bruce S]

Nobody who comprehends economics at all would call free markets "Voodoo
economnics" (sic). I guess the fact that free markets have worked from
the beginning of civilization isn't good enough for you. You display
your ignorance like a badge of honor.

[Will Sill]

Years ago while visiting the PNW, I went to some trouble to go visit
with Ralph. He seemed like a friendly, sensible fellow then. Not sure
what happened, but one thing is certain: Ralph has NO CLUE about
economic realities, and can be depended on to join with Hank, N'Mark and
Jenny in wasting space with snide potshots at the few here willing to
debunk the true voodoo economics of the loony left fringe.

Will

[Jan Orme]

On Nov 15, 1:37 pm, Will Sill <w...@epix.net> wrote:
> On 11/15/12 1:48 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <50a2ed1d$0$34186$c3e8da3$5e5e4...@news.astraweb.com>,

> >   Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 11/13/2012 4:31 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:

> >>> In article <50a2d9c9$0$37030$c3e8da3$f017e...@news.astraweb.com>,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Talk about Voodoo Economics. Perhaps these folks can explain how in
the ever loving hell Obama can continue to print money, Bail out
Zoodoo Green Companies and Buy uneeded Jobs as Payoffs For Votes and
EVER Create REAL Jobs? The Ciiff is near. We can't borrow forever. The
entitlements will collapse from there own weight. At some point the
Mob will be in front of the White House Yelling "WHERE'S MY STUFF!"

Remember that this video is 9 months old.

US Debt Crisis - Perfectly Explained (VIDEO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln6VGCB8f_c

Jan Eric Orme

[nothermark]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:12:45 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:54:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>>
>>My father was a Union rep most of his work life. I have been in a
>>union 3 or 4 times but out of one more. I know the issues from both
>>sides also. That is why I view Union and management in the same
>>light. Both are far from perfect.
>>
>Correct, you will never find perfect when dealing with people. Please
>tell me what the union boss has done to deserve his salary, usually 5
>to 20 times the salary of the union dues paying members. And then, to
>add insult to injury, he does not even pay union dues!

Talking about the Teamsters? In that case, as one told me, getting
their members better salaries than a lot of CEO's. ;-)

Most Unions I know of do not have a lot of folks making a Union
salary. Where they are compensated the differential is not that big
until you get to national level folks who are just another overpaid
management group.

>>>
>>>>and the "maximize profits" movements in management. It is also why I
>>>>favor a large scale approach to things like health care. I would drop
>>>>the company size limit in a heartbeat.
>>>
>>>I do not dout that for a second. Judging by you past posts you want
>>>the boss to pay for the healthcare, cell phone, car, housing, and
>>>probably the food the worker eats, even if he does not bring profit to
>>>the company.
>>
>>Most of it is what one does with one's salary. That leaves a worker
>>choice in what they need.
>>
>>The only axe I have to grind in health care. We all need it sooner or
>>later so we might as well all pay for it all the time and use it when
>>we need it.
>
>I have had coverage from one company since I started working. I have
>more than likely paid a lot more in the 50 years than I used so far.
>The company also had to pay a part. So the company makes a profit.
>But I am covered in case of a major problem.

You are roughly one heart attack away from getting even. Two if you
are lucky.

>>>
>>>>In terms of Darden If I was their competition I would be looking at
>>>>putting out a contract on their upper management.
>>>
>>>Why? Because they figured out how to stay in business and take all
>>>your customers!
>>
>>They would stay in business anyway if they have a well run system at
>>decent margins. I just do not see starting a race to the bottom. That
>>is what you champion.
>>
>I only champion trying to get government out of the way of people
>trying to earn a living. But they want to steal money from the
>workers so they can give it to the "lifetime liberals" for votes.

Then you do not get the race to the bottom or you don;t mind screwing
your neighbors.

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

"Jan Orme" wrote in message Talk about Voodoo Economics.

Perhaps these folks can explain how in the ever loving hell
Obama can continue to print money, Bail out Zoodoo Green

Companies and Buy unneeded Jobs as Payoffs For Votes and

EVER Create REAL Jobs ?

The Cliff is near.

We can't borrow forever.
The entitlements will collapse from there own weight.
At some point the Mob will be in front of the White
House Yelling "WHERE'S MY STUFF!"

------------------------------------------------------------------

And like I've said before..........The mob will consist of ALL OBAMA VOTERS
!!!!
Nitwits all.
It would be funny if it weren't so serious.
The day the money stops getting transferred to the EBT cards, is the day the
riots start.
All the rioters will be Obama voters and they will burn the liberal cities
they live in.
OH, and it will be Bush's fault.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article <50a5453d$0$27231$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,

Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> Nobody who comprehends economics at all would call free markets "Voodoo
> economnics" (sic). I guess the fact that free markets have worked from
> the beginning of civilization isn't good enough for you. You display
> your ignorance like a badge of honor.

Em, you do know who popularized the explanation as Zoodoo, don't you,
Here's a hint, he was a GOP president

[Bruce S]

On 11/15/2012 3:32 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> In article <50a5453d$0$27231$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Nobody who comprehends economics at all would call free markets "Voodoo
>> economnics" (sic). I guess the fact that free markets have worked from
>> the beginning of civilization isn't good enough for you. You display
>> your ignorance like a badge of honor.
>
> Em, you do know who popularized the explanation as Zoodoo, don't you,
> Here's a hint, he was a GOP president

I know that - and he was a proponent of Keynesian economics - He was
wrong. Every Keynesian who has every lived (including Keynes) was
wrong. The fact that GHWBush did not understand free market economics
is the reason he agreed to tax increases and lost his bid for re-election.

[Larry]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:49:44 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>

wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:12:45 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:54:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>wrote:

>Talking about the Teamsters? In that case, as one told me, getting
>their members better salaries than a lot of CEO's. ;-)

They must be poorly paid CEO's.

>
>Most Unions I know of do not have a lot of folks making a Union
>salary. Where they are compensated the differential is not that big
>until you get to national level folks who are just another overpaid
>management group.
>

A local union that I know about pays a friend of mine well over $100k
as a business agent.

>>>>
>You are roughly one heart attack away from getting even. Two if you
>are lucky.
>

Thanks for the information but I am not interested in getting lucky.

>>>>
>Then you do not get the race to the bottom or you don;t mind screwing
>your neighbors.
>

You are correct that I do not get the race to the bottom, can you
explain what you mean by that?
>>>>

[MaxD]

On 11/15/2012 5:23 PM, Bruce S wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 3:32 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>> In article <50a5453d$0$27231$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,
>> Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Nobody who comprehends economics at all would call free markets "Voodoo
>>> economnics" (sic). I guess the fact that free markets have worked from
>>> the beginning of civilization isn't good enough for you. You display
>>> your ignorance like a badge of honor.
>>
>> Em, you do know who popularized the explanation as Zoodoo, don't you,
>> Here's a hint, he was a GOP president
>
> I know that - and he was a proponent of Keynesian economics - He was
> wrong. Every Keynesian who has every lived (including Keynes) was
> wrong. The fact that GHWBush did not understand free market economics
> is the reason he agreed to tax increases and lost his bid for re-election.
>

Economics is *not* a science. At best it's a guess. Or a matter of
*opinion*.

[nothermark]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:26:45 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:49:44 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:12:45 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:54:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>wrote:
>>Talking about the Teamsters? In that case, as one told me, getting
>>their members better salaries than a lot of CEO's. ;-)
>
>They must be poorly paid CEO's.

That was 40 odd years ago. Probably still applicable of a lot of
small business when one considers what the Teamsters get UPS drivers
for pay.

>>
>>Most Unions I know of do not have a lot of folks making a Union
>>salary. Where they are compensated the differential is not that big
>>until you get to national level folks who are just another overpaid
>>management group.
>>
>A local union that I know about pays a friend of mine well over $100k
>as a business agent.

City of Rochester pays the head of the Teachers union full salary plus
the Union pays $50K plus expenses. He has been known to complain
about how hard it is to get by on a lousy $150K or so a year. OTOH
AFAIK no other district around has a full time Union administrator
whatever his title is. OTOH I have been to the IBEW (?) office that
has a staff but also runs some kind of hiring hall for out of work
electricians plus running an apprentice training program.

Point is that it all depends on the Union and what they are doing.
Some do a lot of training and job placement. Some collect dues.
(shrug)

>>>>>
>>You are roughly one heart attack away from getting even. Two if you
>>are lucky.
>>
>Thanks for the information but I am not interested in getting lucky.

Me either but my new hips were $25K I am happy not to have spent. My
buddy is over $250K with one bad heart attack and complications and he
is still not done. Rehab alone will be 1-2 years at an outpatient
facility if he is done with surgeries.

>>>>>
>>Then you do not get the race to the bottom or you don;t mind screwing
>>your neighbors.
>>
>You are correct that I do not get the race to the bottom, can you
>explain what you mean by that?
>>>>>

The short explanation is I cut my workers pay so I can hold or reduce
my costs and undersell you. That puts you in a position of losing
market share or cutting your employee's pay to match or lower than
mine. I retaliate with further cuts. The spiral continues downward.
As long as there is an oversupply of workers there is a lot of
pressure on the worker to suck it up and keep working as a job beats
no job.

It has been happening in manufacturing for quite a while with moving
the job to Mexico then China as the club. That's a large part of why
we have so many working poor.

[Bruce S]

Wrong.

[ozm...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:23:08 PM UTC-6, bruce wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 3:32 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>
> > In article <50a5453d$0$27231$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,
>
> > Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> Nobody who comprehends economics at all would call free markets "Voodoo
>
> >> economnics" (sic). I guess the fact that free markets have worked from
>
> >> the beginning of civilization isn't good enough for you. You display
>
> >> your ignorance like a badge of honor.
>
> >
>
> > Em, you do know who popularized the explanation as Zoodoo, don't you,
>
> > Here's a hint, he was a GOP president
>
>
>
> I know that - and he was a proponent of Keynesian economics - He was
>
> wrong. Every Keynesian who has every lived (including Keynes) was
>
> wrong. The fact that GHWBush did not understand free market economics
>
> is the reason he agreed to tax increases and lost his bid for re-election.

Even though it makes my bed really lumpy, I sleep better with all those gold coins in the mattress.

oz, sipping some Leapy Frog

[Larry]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:43:09 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>

wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:26:45 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:49:44 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:12:45 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:54:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>>wrote:
>>>Talking about the Teamsters? In that case, as one told me, getting
>>>their members better salaries than a lot of CEO's. ;-)
>>
>>They must be poorly paid CEO's.
>
>That was 40 odd years ago. Probably still applicable of a lot of
>small business when one considers what the Teamsters get UPS drivers
>for pay.
>

I am not current with the pay scale of UPS but I do know their drivers
must produce of lose their job. The union contract allows them to
fire for bad production. They were one of the best paying truck
drivers byt they earned it. I doubt anyone, let alone a lot of
people, with the title CEO makes less. Or do you call yourself the
CEO of nomark LLC.

>>>
>>>Most Unions I know of do not have a lot of folks making a Union
>>>salary. Where they are compensated the differential is not that big
>>>until you get to national level folks who are just another overpaid
>>>management group.
>>>
>>A local union that I know about pays a friend of mine well over $100k
>>as a business agent.
>
>City of Rochester pays the head of the Teachers union full salary plus
>the Union pays $50K plus expenses.

Sounds like he is a part time teacher and part time union head if the
city anf union both pay him.

>He has been known to complain
>about how hard it is to get by on a lousy $150K or so a year. OTOH

don't forget to add in the $50K expenses.

>AFAIK no other district around has a full time Union administrator
>whatever his title is. OTOH I have been to the IBEW (?) office that
>has a staff but also runs some kind of hiring hall for out of work
>electricians plus running an apprentice training program.

Most unions have a hiring hall as part of doing business.

>
>Point is that it all depends on the Union and what they are doing.
>Some do a lot of training and job placement. Some collect dues.
>(shrug)
>

They ALL collect dues.

>>>>>>
>>>You are roughly one heart attack away from getting even. Two if you
>>>are lucky.
>>>
>>Thanks for the information but I am not interested in getting lucky.
>
>Me either but my new hips were $25K I am happy not to have spent. My
>buddy is over $250K with one bad heart attack and complications and he
>is still not done. Rehab alone will be 1-2 years at an outpatient
>facility if he is done with surgeries.
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>Then you do not get the race to the bottom or you don;t mind screwing
>>>your neighbors.
>>>
>>You are correct that I do not get the race to the bottom, can you
>>explain what you mean by that?
>>>>>>
>
>The short explanation is I cut my workers pay so I can hold or reduce
>my costs and undersell you. That puts you in a position of losing
>market share or cutting your employee's pay to match or lower than
>mine. I retaliate with further cuts. The spiral continues downward.
>As long as there is an oversupply of workers there is a lot of
>pressure on the worker to suck it up and keep working as a job beats
>no job.

A better way is to make a superior product, with better quality,
charge more and pay your workers more.
Even with the difference in price I would much rather buy a Ford than
a Kia.

>
>It has been happening in manufacturing for quite a while with moving
>the job to Mexico then China as the club. That's a large part of why
>we have so many working poor.

I maintain in many instances it was because the government regulations
made it too difficult to make a profit here. No one stays in busimess
to lose money.

[Owen McKenzie]

Heard this somewhere, sometime. "If all the economists in the world were
laid end to end they wouldn't reach a conclusion!"

And wasn't it Harry Truman that asked for a one-armed economist so he
couldn't say, "But on the other hand..."

--

Owen McKenzie
Posting from Largo, FL


"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying
to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly
succeed, and are right."
-- H. L. Mencken

[nothermark]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:42:00 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:43:09 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:26:45 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:49:44 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:12:45 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:54:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>Talking about the Teamsters? In that case, as one told me, getting
>>>>their members better salaries than a lot of CEO's. ;-)
>>>
>>>They must be poorly paid CEO's.
>>
>>That was 40 odd years ago. Probably still applicable of a lot of
>>small business when one considers what the Teamsters get UPS drivers
>>for pay.
>>
>I am not current with the pay scale of UPS but I do know their drivers
>must produce of lose their job. The union contract allows them to
>fire for bad production. They were one of the best paying truck
>drivers byt they earned it. I doubt anyone, let alone a lot of
>people, with the title CEO makes less. Or do you call yourself the
>CEO of nomark LLC.

I call myself retired. OTOH I have met some very title conscious
folks who had their own business's because they would not work for
anybody else. In the old days I was often making more money than they
were. Not so often in the last few years.

I understand the issues with UPS driver jobs. I just find the
difference between UPS and Fedex interesting. Worlds apart from what
I know.

>>>>
>>>>Most Unions I know of do not have a lot of folks making a Union
>>>>salary. Where they are compensated the differential is not that big
>>>>until you get to national level folks who are just another overpaid
>>>>management group.
>>>>
>>>A local union that I know about pays a friend of mine well over $100k
>>>as a business agent.
>>
>>City of Rochester pays the head of the Teachers union full salary plus
>>the Union pays $50K plus expenses.
>
>Sounds like he is a part time teacher and part time union head if the
>city anf union both pay him.

He has not been in the classroom as a teacher in many years. He found
a good scam being the Union head and ran with it.

>
>>He has been known to complain
>>about how hard it is to get by on a lousy $150K or so a year. OTOH
>
>don't forget to add in the $50K expenses.

That's around $150K combined. Might be $160K as I have lost track of
the maximum teacher pay.

>
>>AFAIK no other district around has a full time Union administrator
>>whatever his title is. OTOH I have been to the IBEW (?) office that
>>has a staff but also runs some kind of hiring hall for out of work
>>electricians plus running an apprentice training program.
>
>Most unions have a hiring hall as part of doing business.

Trade unions do, industrial unions generally do not. from what I know.
That does not say there is not a business office if the union is big
enough to need one.

Quality is not an issue for the workers in a lot of places. As an
example your restaurant chain is very likely using prepackaged frozen
entree's and mass produced bulk packed everything else. It's how they
produce a uniform meal and why I try to avoid them when I can fine a
mom and pop cooking fresh. The point is bad service can screw up a
meal but nothing can make it better or, often, different.

The idea extends into a lot of places. GM used to, and may still,
purposely design small cars to be less user friendly and/or generally
lower class in trim as a tool to push folks to the big cars. The
differences I am talking about are not cost driven. That was how
folks like Honda got a toehold. They made a nice small car for folks
who wanted a small car.

>>
>>It has been happening in manufacturing for quite a while with moving
>>the job to Mexico then China as the club. That's a large part of why
>>we have so many working poor.
>
>I maintain in many instances it was because the government regulations
>made it too difficult to make a profit here. No one stays in busimess
>to lose money.

A lot of things make it cheaper to outsource. The problem is we
stopped poisoning the planet and started paying somebody else to do
it. That is why I would require all products sold here be produced in
plants that meet EPA and OSHA standards.

[bill horne]

Works for me.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

[Larry]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:43:59 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:
Snipped a bunch

>>>It has been happening in manufacturing for quite a while with moving
>>>the job to Mexico then China as the club. That's a large part of why
>>>we have so many working poor.
>>
>>I maintain in many instances it was because the government regulations
>>made it too difficult to make a profit here. No one stays in busimess
>>to lose money.
>
>A lot of things make it cheaper to outsource. The problem is we
>stopped poisoning the planet and started paying somebody else to do
>it. That is why I would require all products sold here be produced in
>plants that meet EPA and OSHA standards.

There is no way to enforce that requirement. You could inspect one
small manufacturing plant and then they ship from 10 different plants.

We do try to work twards keeping the planet in good shape but that is
never enough for people like you and Al Gore. He has made many
millions of dollars with his "Global Warming" junk science.

Every time we find a way to do something that causes less polution
along comes Uncle Sam and says we just passed a new regulation that
demands half again what you just got cleaned up. This and the union
demands are the main reasons jobs go offshore.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:29:07 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:43:59 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>Snipped a bunch
>
>>>>It has been happening in manufacturing for quite a while with moving
>>>>the job to Mexico then China as the club. That's a large part of why
>>>>we have so many working poor.
>>>
>>>I maintain in many instances it was because the government regulations
>>>made it too difficult to make a profit here. No one stays in busimess
>>>to lose money.
>>
>>A lot of things make it cheaper to outsource. The problem is we
>>stopped poisoning the planet and started paying somebody else to do
>>it. That is why I would require all products sold here be produced in
>>plants that meet EPA and OSHA standards.
>
>There is no way to enforce that requirement. You could inspect one
>small manufacturing plant and then they ship from 10 different plants.

Easy way #1 - make it here.

Easy way #2 make the importer monitor and certify on pain of
executions of the offending management.

>
>We do try to work twards keeping the planet in good shape but that is
>never enough for people like you and Al Gore. He has made many
>millions of dollars with his "Global Warming" junk science.

Don't confuse me with Gore, Greenpeace or that bunch of morons. I am
not into fairy stories and what it's either. Let me give you a clue.
If man is causing global warming then there is no way we can reverse
it short of mass executions of more than half the planet. Any other
track results in too much green house gas and/or pollution or will not
meet the basic needs of everybody.

>
>Every time we find a way to do something that causes less polution
>along comes Uncle Sam and says we just passed a new regulation that
>demands half again what you just got cleaned up. This and the union
>demands are the main reasons jobs go offshore.

Most of the companies I know of that moved off shore were non union.

As far as tightening regulations I am partly with you. The other
issue is that we have often found the best limit was 0. There is
another issue in that all regulations are a combination of what is
possible vs what is desired, usually zero. As the technology evolved
it has often been the case that better alternatives were found or
better clean up techniques. The danger is when when the lawyers
forget who really sets the limits. It is not the Courts.

[nothermark]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:32:30 -0800, Ralph E Lindberg
<n7...@callsign.net> wrote:

>In article <50a5453d$0$27231$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Nobody who comprehends economics at all would call free markets "Voodoo
>> economnics" (sic). I guess the fact that free markets have worked from
>> the beginning of civilization isn't good enough for you. You display
>> your ignorance like a badge of honor.
>
>Em, you do know who popularized the explanation as Zoodoo, don't you,
>Here's a hint, he was a GOP president

Do you know where Zoo Doo comes from?

[MaxD]

No. But I know where Bull Doo Doo comes from; politicians and used car
salesmen.

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article <dur5a81refj94gm41...@4ax.com>,
Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:


>
>
> Bruce I know that you listen to and get your information from
> infallible sources. We are constantly reminded some of you as to
> which sources have "true knowledge & facts" vs, those sources that
> just repeat the party line.
>
> Let me be the first to break the news to you....... Your sources have
> been wrong, dead wrong. It might be time for you to change sources to
> one that at least gets some things right.
>
> You have been drinking the kool aid for so long you couldn't even tell
> when they dropped the turd in it.
>
Was it Bruce or Jan that posted the "claim" that 79% of GMs sales in
June 2012 came from sales to the US-Gov. Well, GM says the real number
for that period is slightly less then 3% and actual sales to the US Gov
is actually -down-

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article <50a5876c$0$33440$c3e8da3$fdf4...@news.astraweb.com>,

Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/15/2012 3:32 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> > In article <50a5453d$0$27231$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,
> > Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Nobody who comprehends economics at all would call free markets "Voodoo
> >> economnics" (sic). I guess the fact that free markets have worked from
> >> the beginning of civilization isn't good enough for you. You display
> >> your ignorance like a badge of honor.
> >
> > Em, you do know who popularized the explanation as Zoodoo, don't you,
> > Here's a hint, he was a GOP president
>
> I know that - and he was a proponent of Keynesian economics - He was
> wrong. Every Keynesian who has every lived (including Keynes) was
> wrong. The fact that GHWBush did not understand free market economics
> is the reason he agreed to tax increases and lost his bid for re-election.

How did I know you were not actually talking about actual Keynesian,
which relies on the Government for certain specific items

You see I've studied actual Economics, not just read some pie-in-the-sky
junk from some wing-nut trying to sell his latest theory on how to
"improve" things

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article <agn61c...@mid.individual.net>,

Owen McKenzie <owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/15/2012 8:47 PM, MaxD wrote:
> > On 11/15/2012 5:23 PM, Bruce S wrote:
> >> On 11/15/2012 3:32 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> >>> In article <50a5453d$0$27231$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,
> >>> Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nobody who comprehends economics at all would call free markets "Voodoo
> >>>> economnics" (sic). I guess the fact that free markets have worked from
> >>>> the beginning of civilization isn't good enough for you. You display
> >>>> your ignorance like a badge of honor.
> >>>
> >>> Em, you do know who popularized the explanation as Zoodoo, don't you,
> >>> Here's a hint, he was a GOP president
> >>
> >> I know that - and he was a proponent of Keynesian economics - He was
> >> wrong. Every Keynesian who has every lived (including Keynes) was
> >> wrong. The fact that GHWBush did not understand free market economics
> >> is the reason he agreed to tax increases and lost his bid for
> >> re-election.
> >>
> >
> > Economics is *not* a science. At best it's a guess. Or a matter of
> > *opinion*.
>
> Heard this somewhere, sometime. "If all the economists in the world were
> laid end to end they wouldn't reach a conclusion!"
>
> And wasn't it Harry Truman that asked for a one-armed economist so he
> couldn't say, "But on the other hand..."

Oh is that ever true

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article <50a5bf9a$0$24574$c3e8da3$cc4f...@news.astraweb.com>,

Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/15/2012 5:47 PM, MaxD wrote:
> > On 11/15/2012 5:23 PM, Bruce S wrote:
> >> On 11/15/2012 3:32 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> >>> In article <50a5453d$0$27231$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,
> >>> Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nobody who comprehends economics at all would call free markets "Voodoo
> >>>> economnics" (sic). I guess the fact that free markets have worked from
> >>>> the beginning of civilization isn't good enough for you. You display
> >>>> your ignorance like a badge of honor.
> >>>
> >>> Em, you do know who popularized the explanation as Zoodoo, don't you,
> >>> Here's a hint, he was a GOP president
> >>
> >> I know that - and he was a proponent of Keynesian economics - He was
> >> wrong. Every Keynesian who has every lived (including Keynes) was
> >> wrong. The fact that GHWBush did not understand free market economics
> >> is the reason he agreed to tax increases and lost his bid for
> >> re-election.
> >>
> >
> > Economics is *not* a science. At best it's a guess. Or a matter of
> > *opinion*.
>
> Wrong.

Snork, you sound -just- like a guy I know that is still trying to prove
that Markism is the best economic system

The problem with both what both of you espouse is that no theoretical
system ever works when it has to deal with the realities of the world
people actually live in.

[nothermark]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/politics/petraeus-timeline/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

a lot of Zoo's package it.

[Bruce S]

On 11/16/2012 2:52 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> In article <dur5a81refj94gm41...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Bruce I know that you listen to and get your information from
>> infallible sources. We are constantly reminded some of you as to
>> which sources have "true knowledge & facts" vs, those sources that
>> just repeat the party line.
>>
>> Let me be the first to break the news to you....... Your sources have
>> been wrong, dead wrong. It might be time for you to change sources to
>> one that at least gets some things right.
>>
>> You have been drinking the kool aid for so long you couldn't even tell
>> when they dropped the turd in it.
>>
> Was it Bruce or Jan that posted the "claim" that 79% of GMs sales in
> June 2012 came from sales to the US-Gov. Well, GM says the real number
> for that period is slightly less then 3% and actual sales to the US Gov
> is actually -down-

Since I can't recall ever seeing that number before, it wasn't me.

[Bruce S]

On 11/16/2012 2:56 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> In article <50a5876c$0$33440$c3e8da3$fdf4...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/15/2012 3:32 PM, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
>>> In article <50a5453d$0$27231$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,
>>> Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nobody who comprehends economics at all would call free markets "Voodoo
>>>> economnics" (sic). I guess the fact that free markets have worked from
>>>> the beginning of civilization isn't good enough for you. You display
>>>> your ignorance like a badge of honor.
>>>
>>> Em, you do know who popularized the explanation as Zoodoo, don't you,
>>> Here's a hint, he was a GOP president
>>
>> I know that - and he was a proponent of Keynesian economics - He was
>> wrong. Every Keynesian who has every lived (including Keynes) was
>> wrong. The fact that GHWBush did not understand free market economics
>> is the reason he agreed to tax increases and lost his bid for re-election.
>
> How did I know you were not actually talking about actual Keynesian,
> which relies on the Government for certain specific items
>
> You see I've studied actual Economics, not just read some pie-in-the-sky
> junk from some wing-nut trying to sell his latest theory on how to
> "improve" things

Keynes was just as wrong as the politicians who have misinterpreted his
writings ever since. There is never, in the history of the world, an
example of long term success of a Keynesian economy. On the other hand,
free markets have always been successful.

For a real quick look at the failure of Keynesian policies, look at how
long it took to recover from the stock market crash of 1929, and compare
that with the crash of 1921 when the government got out of the way and
let the economy recover on its own.

And we can see modern Keynesian thinking in every economic policy 0bama
has promoted in the last four years (remember his spokesperson saying
that food stamps are good for the economy - modern Keynesianism in
action) - and look what those policies have done for the economy - four
years of stagnation with four more to come.

If we had an Austrian economist in charge, we would be well past this
and on the road to real prosperity again.

[Larry]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:27:35 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>

wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:29:07 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:43:59 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>wrote:
>>Snipped a bunch
>>
>>>>>It has been happening in manufacturing for quite a while with moving
>>>>>the job to Mexico then China as the club. That's a large part of why
>>>>>we have so many working poor.
>>>>
>>>>I maintain in many instances it was because the government regulations
>>>>made it too difficult to make a profit here. No one stays in busimess
>>>>to lose money.
>>>
>>>A lot of things make it cheaper to outsource. The problem is we
>>>stopped poisoning the planet and started paying somebody else to do
>>>it. That is why I would require all products sold here be produced in
>>>plants that meet EPA and OSHA standards.
>>
>>There is no way to enforce that requirement. You could inspect one
>>small manufacturing plant and then they ship from 10 different plants.
>
>Easy way #1 - make it here.
>
>Easy way #2 make the importer monitor and certify on pain of
>executions of the offending management.
>

mark, please answer in english instead of gibberish.

>>
>>We do try to work twards keeping the planet in good shape but that is
>>never enough for people like you and Al Gore. He has made many
>>millions of dollars with his "Global Warming" junk science.
>
>Don't confuse me with Gore, Greenpeace or that bunch of morons. I am
>not into fairy stories and what it's either. Let me give you a clue.
>If man is causing global warming then there is no way we can reverse
>it short of mass executions of more than half the planet. Any other
>track results in too much green house gas and/or pollution or will not
>meet the basic needs of everybody.
>
>>
>>Every time we find a way to do something that causes less polution
>>along comes Uncle Sam and says we just passed a new regulation that
>>demands half again what you just got cleaned up. This and the union
>>demands are the main reasons jobs go offshore.
>
>Most of the companies I know of that moved off shore were non union.

Did I not read a bunch of your posts complaining about all the large
manufacturing in your area up and left?

>
>As far as tightening regulations I am partly with you. The other
>issue is that we have often found the best limit was 0. There is
>another issue in that all regulations are a combination of what is
>possible vs what is desired, usually zero. As the technology evolved
>it has often been the case that better alternatives were found or
>better clean up techniques. The danger is when when the lawyers
>forget who really sets the limits. It is not the Courts.

More gibberish.

[nothermark]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 09:45:06 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:27:35 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:29:07 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:43:59 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>>wrote:
>>>Snipped a bunch
>>>
>>>>>>It has been happening in manufacturing for quite a while with moving
>>>>>>the job to Mexico then China as the club. That's a large part of why
>>>>>>we have so many working poor.
>>>>>
>>>>>I maintain in many instances it was because the government regulations
>>>>>made it too difficult to make a profit here. No one stays in busimess
>>>>>to lose money.
>>>>
>>>>A lot of things make it cheaper to outsource. The problem is we
>>>>stopped poisoning the planet and started paying somebody else to do
>>>>it. That is why I would require all products sold here be produced in
>>>>plants that meet EPA and OSHA standards.
>>>
>>>There is no way to enforce that requirement. You could inspect one
>>>small manufacturing plant and then they ship from 10 different plants.
>>
>>Easy way #1 - make it here.
>>
>>Easy way #2 make the importer monitor and certify on pain of
>>executions of the offending management.
>>
>mark, please answer in english instead of gibberish.

Read the question, read the answer. I don't see how it could be more
plainly put.

>>>
>>>We do try to work twards keeping the planet in good shape but that is
>>>never enough for people like you and Al Gore. He has made many
>>>millions of dollars with his "Global Warming" junk science.
>>
>>Don't confuse me with Gore, Greenpeace or that bunch of morons. I am
>>not into fairy stories and what it's either. Let me give you a clue.
>>If man is causing global warming then there is no way we can reverse
>>it short of mass executions of more than half the planet. Any other
>>track results in too much green house gas and/or pollution or will not
>>meet the basic needs of everybody.
>>
>>>
>>>Every time we find a way to do something that causes less polution
>>>along comes Uncle Sam and says we just passed a new regulation that
>>>demands half again what you just got cleaned up. This and the union
>>>demands are the main reasons jobs go offshore.
>>
>>Most of the companies I know of that moved off shore were non union.
>
>Did I not read a bunch of your posts complaining about all the large
>manufacturing in your area up and left?

Partly left, mostly collapsed. Kodak is in Bankruptcy, GM pulled way
back on the Delco plant, closed the Rochester Products plant,
transferred the hydrogen fuel cell research facility to Michigan. I
expect they will transfer the gasoline fuel research/design group to
Michigan when the lease runs out on a large Campus here. Xerox sold
off a large building so they are down to the office tower and a Campus
in Webster with a new toner plant and what is left of the company.
They tore down a big warehouse and put several new call centers in
what were manufacturing buildings. Then there were a host of smaller
companies that supplied parts and services to the big boys. There are
also a host of spin off companies from the downsizing.

In my last job I got to visit a lot of those folks and do casual chat
"how are things going" type stuff. It was quite interesting to see
how much was now off shored or in the process of going there.

The wisdom of opening up China was that it would open markets for us.
Reality is that the Chinese are not interested in buying product
unless they can get manufacturing rights and maybe the steal any
special knowledge and start up their own version of the company. I
have seen that happen several times.

>>
>>As far as tightening regulations I am partly with you. The other
>>issue is that we have often found the best limit was 0. There is
>>another issue in that all regulations are a combination of what is
>>possible vs what is desired, usually zero. As the technology evolved
>>it has often been the case that better alternatives were found or
>>better clean up techniques. The danger is when when the lawyers
>>forget who really sets the limits. It is not the Courts.
>
>More gibberish.

Baloney. I think gibberish translates to "I don't like the answer".

[ozm...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:25:18 AM UTC-6, nothermark wrote:

> The wisdom of opening up China was that it would open markets for us.
>
> Reality is that the Chinese are not interested in buying product
>
> unless they can get manufacturing rights and maybe the steal any
>
> special knowledge and start up their own version of the company. I
>
> have seen that happen several times.

http://tinyurl.com/cs79xuo

[Larry]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:25:23 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 09:45:06 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:

snip

>>>>There is no way to enforce that requirement. You could inspect one
>>>>small manufacturing plant and then they ship from 10 different plants.
>>>
>>>Easy way #1 - make it here.
>>>
>>>Easy way #2 make the importer monitor and certify on pain of
>>>executions of the offending management.
>>>
>>mark, please answer in english instead of gibberish.
>
>Read the question, read the answer. I don't see how it could be more
>plainly put.
>

Hard to believe you are saying that you want to execute someone for
not following your rules? Also what makes you think the importer
will not lie to make a better profit?
>
snip

>>>As far as tightening regulations I am partly with you. The other
>>>issue is that we have often found the best limit was 0. There is
>>>another issue in that all regulations are a combination of what is
>>>possible vs what is desired, usually zero. As the technology evolved
>>>it has often been the case that better alternatives were found or
>>>better clean up techniques. The danger is when when the lawyers
>>>forget who really sets the limits. It is not the Courts.
>>
>>More gibberish.
>
>Baloney. I think gibberish translates to "I don't like the answer".

Ok, lets take it one at a time.

>>>As far as tightening regulations I am partly with you. The other
>>>issue is that we have often found the best limit was 0.

What does this mean?

>>>There is
>>>another issue in that all regulations are a combination of what is
>>>possible vs what is desired, usually zero.

You like the zero thing but I have no idea what you mean by that.

>>>As the technology evolved
>>>it has often been the case that better alternatives were found or
>>>better clean up techniques. The danger is when when the lawyers
>>>forget who really sets the limits. It is not the Courts.

And what does this have to do with tightening the regulations as soon
as the company meets the current regs?

[nothermark]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:16:51 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:25:23 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 09:45:06 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:
>snip
>>>>>There is no way to enforce that requirement. You could inspect one
>>>>>small manufacturing plant and then they ship from 10 different plants.
>>>>
>>>>Easy way #1 - make it here.
>>>>
>>>>Easy way #2 make the importer monitor and certify on pain of
>>>>executions of the offending management.
>>>>
>>>mark, please answer in english instead of gibberish.
>>
>>Read the question, read the answer. I don't see how it could be more
>>plainly put.
>>
>Hard to believe you are saying that you want to execute someone for
>not following your rules? Also what makes you think the importer
>will not lie to make a better profit?
>>

The point is to make the penalties for lying harsh enough to be
meaningful instead of something that can be written off as the cost of
doing business. Find who lied, prosecute and carry out a sentence
that means something.

I am starting to believe the government is finally figuring that out.
If you noticed the indicted 2 BP rig bosses for manslaughter. If they
make that stick the repercussions will exceed any fine. Folks do not
like to be held responsible for business decisions. A couple of years
in a Federal jail is potentially career ending.

>snip
>>>>As far as tightening regulations I am partly with you. The other
>>>>issue is that we have often found the best limit was 0. There is
>>>>another issue in that all regulations are a combination of what is
>>>>possible vs what is desired, usually zero. As the technology evolved
>>>>it has often been the case that better alternatives were found or
>>>>better clean up techniques. The danger is when when the lawyers
>>>>forget who really sets the limits. It is not the Courts.
>>>
>>>More gibberish.
>>
>>Baloney. I think gibberish translates to "I don't like the answer".
>
>Ok, lets take it one at a time.
>>>>As far as tightening regulations I am partly with you. The other
>>>>issue is that we have often found the best limit was 0.
>What does this mean?

It means that we have learned some products have no "safe" limit so
the best answer is to avoid using them. Plutonium comes to mind.
Another is tetraethyl lead. That killed something like 28 people in
the first factory that made it over a several moth period. There were
charges and suits that lead to the Federal government taking over the
legal action then key Congress folks that were bought off. Big
scandal back when gasoline was just becoming a commodity fuel. There
are a host of other materials that are equally destructive. Sometimes
there is no choice, often there are.

>
>>>>There is
>>>>another issue in that all regulations are a combination of what is
>>>>possible vs what is desired, usually zero.
>You like the zero thing but I have no idea what you mean by that.
>
>>>>As the technology evolved
>>>>it has often been the case that better alternatives were found or
>>>>better clean up techniques. The danger is when when the lawyers
>>>>forget who really sets the limits. It is not the Courts.
>And what does this have to do with tightening the regulations as soon
>as the company meets the current regs?

It's like the CAFE standards. As technology improves the standards
can be lowered. As long as there is adequate time to respond and
answers available I see no reason not to comply. I do have a major
problem with lawyers calling the shots for chemical and physical
issues. Legislating a new standard without some technology to meet is
strikes me as bad law.

[Larry]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:46:51 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:

>>>>>As the technology evolved
>>>>>it has often been the case that better alternatives were found or
>>>>>better clean up techniques. The danger is when when the lawyers
>>>>>forget who really sets the limits. It is not the Courts.
>>And what does this have to do with tightening the regulations as soon
>>as the company meets the current regs?
>
>It's like the CAFE standards. As technology improves the standards
>can be lowered. As long as there is adequate time to respond and
>answers available I see no reason not to comply. I do have a major
>problem with lawyers calling the shots for chemical and physical
>issues. Legislating a new standard without some technology to meet is
>strikes me as bad law.

I do not see the Feds lowering any of the standards for burning coal
even though we have made great progress in this area. In fact they
keep adding more regulations to put the coal industry out of business.

Isn't it better to use our cleaner coal burning plants to provide
energy for manufacturing in this country than to have China produce
the same things without any restrictions? The worlds atmosphere
would be cleaner if we did it here, the price might be much closer
without the shipping charges and there would be more US jobs. But
OweBama would rather close the coal industry down and let China
pollute 20 times as much as we would.

[nothermark]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:59:40 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:46:51 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>>As the technology evolved
>>>>>>it has often been the case that better alternatives were found or
>>>>>>better clean up techniques. The danger is when when the lawyers
>>>>>>forget who really sets the limits. It is not the Courts.
>>>And what does this have to do with tightening the regulations as soon
>>>as the company meets the current regs?
>>
>>It's like the CAFE standards. As technology improves the standards
>>can be lowered. As long as there is adequate time to respond and
>>answers available I see no reason not to comply. I do have a major
>>problem with lawyers calling the shots for chemical and physical
>>issues. Legislating a new standard without some technology to meet is
>>strikes me as bad law.
>
>I do not see the Feds lowering any of the standards for burning coal
>even though we have made great progress in this area. In fact they
>keep adding more regulations to put the coal industry out of business.

Coal is very chemically dirty to burn and physically dirty and
dangerous to mine. I am not as enamored with getting rid of it as
some folks are but I can see why they keep tightening up the pollution
specifications. Given what the acid rain has done to the NE I am not
arguing.

>
>Isn't it better to use our cleaner coal burning plants to provide
>energy for manufacturing in this country than to have China produce
>the same things without any restrictions? The worlds atmosphere
>would be cleaner if we did it here, the price might be much closer
>without the shipping charges and there would be more US jobs. But
>OweBama would rather close the coal industry down and let China
>pollute 20 times as much as we would.

You are at least 2/3 correct but the business community is enamored
with cheap labor. If they can save a cent too many will take that
over running a clean operation. All they see is the cost of the
cleanup. As far as Obama goes I do not know. I do know some of his
advisors are big on killing off coal. Academia is full of folks like
that. In essence it represents my problem with them. Too many folks
very well educated in one specific topicand dumb as a rock about a lot
of other practical issues.

[Larry]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:52:24 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:

snip

>>I do not see the Feds lowering any of the standards for burning coal
>>even though we have made great progress in this area. In fact they
>>keep adding more regulations to put the coal industry out of business.
>
>Coal is very chemically dirty to burn and physically dirty and
>dangerous to mine. I am not as enamored with getting rid of it as
>some folks are but I can see why they keep tightening up the pollution
>specifications. Given what the acid rain has done to the NE I am not
>arguing.

That problem has been solved, years ago. I lived in the NE when it
was a problem, it no longer is but the regs continue to grow and
expand.

>>
>>Isn't it better to use our cleaner coal burning plants to provide
>>energy for manufacturing in this country than to have China produce
>>the same things without any restrictions? The worlds atmosphere
>>would be cleaner if we did it here, the price might be much closer
>>without the shipping charges and there would be more US jobs. But
>>OweBama would rather close the coal industry down and let China
>>pollute 20 times as much as we would.
>
>You are at least 2/3 correct but the business community is enamored
>with cheap labor. If they can save a cent too many will take that
>over running a clean operation. All they see is the cost of the
>cleanup.

They do have to make a profit to stay in business

>As far as Obama goes I do not know. I do know some of his
>advisors are big on killing off coal. Academia is full of folks like
>that. In essence it represents my problem with them. Too many folks
>very well educated in one specific topicand dumb as a rock about a lot
>of other practical issues.

First we need to get our country back to work. When that happens we
will be able to think about the rest of the problems. People that
can't afford a place to live and food to eat will always vote for
whoever will give them both. OweBama is more than happy to supply
anything they want, as long as my money pays for it, to buy their
votes.

[nothermark]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:47:50 -0500, Larry <La...@fishing.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:52:24 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>>I do not see the Feds lowering any of the standards for burning coal
>>>even though we have made great progress in this area. In fact they
>>>keep adding more regulations to put the coal industry out of business.
>>
>>Coal is very chemically dirty to burn and physically dirty and
>>dangerous to mine. I am not as enamored with getting rid of it as
>>some folks are but I can see why they keep tightening up the pollution
>>specifications. Given what the acid rain has done to the NE I am not
>>arguing.
>
>That problem has been solved, years ago. I lived in the NE when it
>was a problem, it no longer is but the regs continue to grow and
>expand.

No, it has been mitigated but it is far from ended. Most of the
Adirondack waters are still more or less sterile from acid rain. We
still get building damage. Remember, in order to meet regulations
half the western power plants did not clean up, they raised their
chimneys. We still get the fallout.

Some of the rest of the EPA has gotten into silly status like worrying
about methane from cows. OTOH a lot of it like cleaning up diesel
exhaust is a serious issue.

>>>
>>>Isn't it better to use our cleaner coal burning plants to provide
>>>energy for manufacturing in this country than to have China produce
>>>the same things without any restrictions? The worlds atmosphere
>>>would be cleaner if we did it here, the price might be much closer
>>>without the shipping charges and there would be more US jobs. But
>>>OweBama would rather close the coal industry down and let China
>>>pollute 20 times as much as we would.
>>
>>You are at least 2/3 correct but the business community is enamored
>>with cheap labor. If they can save a cent too many will take that
>>over running a clean operation. All they see is the cost of the
>>cleanup.
>
>They do have to make a profit to stay in business

So raise the cost of their products to cover their expenses. It's a
false economy to sell me a product for a few cents less than tax me
more than that to continually rebuild infrastructure destroyed by the
money saved. Then there are the medical costs and associated other
issues.

Note, I am not a bleeding heart econut but there are very rational
controls and limits. That includes shortening some chimneys and
installing the cleaning technologies that are viable.

>
>>As far as Obama goes I do not know. I do know some of his
>>advisors are big on killing off coal. Academia is full of folks like
>>that. In essence it represents my problem with them. Too many folks
>>very well educated in one specific topicand dumb as a rock about a lot
>>of other practical issues.
>
>First we need to get our country back to work. When that happens we
>will be able to think about the rest of the problems. People that
>can't afford a place to live and food to eat will always vote for
>whoever will give them both. OweBama is more than happy to supply
>anything they want, as long as my money pays for it, to buy their
>votes.

As much as the Conservatives like to whine about work the rest of the
country is very aware that a job beats welfare for all but a small
handful of folks. The problem is getting the jobs back into this
country. The easiest way I know of is to force their return with
clean air laws and/or import duties. It will run up prices a bit for
a lot of discretionary spending but it will be cheaper than the taxes
to keep supporting a large out of work population.

There is a second issue of wealth distribution. There is a host of
data around. Just search for "US income distribution". As it stands
the top 1% could be cut from 20% of the income to 10% without major
pain while that income could be shifted to the bottom 40% and double
their wages. We are screwed regularly by the very rich but whine
about paying the working poor. Stupid idea as the bottom 40% would
spend the money more effectively than the top 1%.

If that sounds radical you might consider that income, not wealth, but
income, distirbution is now more lopsided than it was during slave
days.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/us-income-inequality-its-worse-today-than-it-was-in-1774/262537/