What happened to Japan?
Jim Blair
During the 1970’s and 80’s it seemed like everyone was worried about
Japan taking over the world. They were smart and efficient, and were
employing TQM (remember that?) and the ideas of William E. Demming.
They had an "Industrial Policy". The USA was going to be falling
behind them and eventually they would control the world economy
and even buy up most of the valuable property in the USA: Rockeller
Center and Pebble Beach, lots of hotels and our companies, etc.
Then during the 1990’s everything changed. Japan fell into a decade
long recession, sold off their US holding at a loss, the yen dropped
to under a penny and the question was what happened to them and why.
Georgists said it was because they directed their tax base away
from land.
Supply Siders said it was because their taxes were too high.
Conservatives said Japan was an example of failed Keynesianism.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.7119/pub_detail.asp
Paul Krugman offered the interesting idea that it was demographics:
too many old people.
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/japan.html
But for the last several years Japan has pulled out of its recession
and is on the rebound again.
Why? Do they tax land again? Have they cut their tax rates? Have
they stopped trying to deficit-spend their way to prosperity?
Did they get younger?
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Chief
IMHO, it was age and benefits. The same thing that will hit us in 10-20
years unless the idiots in congress can keep their hands off the FICA tax
monies. Only our problem will be worst because our families are not the
same as Japanese families. We will be up to our ears in extremely poor
old people flipping bergers for heart medications.
Richard
> IMHO, it was age and benefits. The same thing that will hit us in 10-20
> years unless the idiots in congress can keep their hands off the FICA tax
> monies. Only our problem will be worst because our families are not the
> same as Japanese families. We will be up to our ears in extremely poor
> old people flipping bergers for heart medications.
And since those jobs make up a large percentage of the jobs high
school kids work at, they'll start knocking off old folks just to
reduce the supply of burger flippers.
--
Don't believe anything unless you have thought it through for
yourself. (Anna Pell Wheeler, 1883-1966)
Chief
news:MPG.1b5e1980f...@news.verizon.net:
> Ch...@Home.com wrote...
>
>> IMHO, it was age and benefits. The same thing that will hit us in
>> 10-20 years unless the idiots in congress can keep their hands off
>> the FICA tax monies. Only our problem will be worst because our
>> families are not the same as Japanese families. We will be up to our
>> ears in extremely poor old people flipping bergers for heart
>> medications.
>
> And since those jobs make up a large percentage of the jobs high
> school kids work at, they'll start knocking off old folks just to
> reduce the supply of burger flippers.
>
......... and a bill will be introduced to privatize the killing. Game
reserves will be set up where old folks will be killed for sport. Anybody
who's anybody will have a grannies head stuffed and mounted in their dens.
For those in the wildes, a bounty system will be set up. Hundred dollar tax
rebate for each skin turned in. The Helmsley's of the world will all be
wearing 'to die for' granny skin shoes and matching pocketbooks.
What a wonderful world the truely greedy will have. Mint Julips on the
porch while the screams of the poor can be heard softly rolling on the
clouds of toxic waste.
Mason A. Clark
The questions imply that economic theory has something to do
with the operation of economic systems. As the subsequent
responses in this thread imply, this is not so.
The behavior of the economic system is determined by
psycho-socio-political factors or socio-psycho-political or.....
Mason C
Johnny 5
> What happened to Japan?
>
> During the 1970’s and 80’s it seemed like everyone was worried about
> Japan taking over the world.
They sure have the neatest cell phones with all the latest tech.
They were smart and efficient, and were
> employing TQM (remember that?)
I remember TQM, they started that shit at IBM in 95 and then a few months
later laid off 7K people in my section right before their 20 year
retirement - didn't have to pay all that burden at that point - so the
stock did well and we acquired lotus notes - there was a guy in the
networking division, he had a nice car, nice house, was sending his kids
to college, worked hard, laid off 1 year before his retirement, lost the
house, the car, wife left him, couldn't help his kids, so sad. My peers
at the time called me a fool for leaving my cushy big blue job, I guess
they couldn't see the future. The sad thing is 2 buildings over were all
these indians working for pennies on the dollar that were getting
training and eventually got sent back to india to do IBM work there, I
met some of the smartest people in my life at IBM, and some of the
dumbest too. I tried reaching some of my old peers at IBM a few years
ago - they were gone - BWAHAHA!
> They had an "Industrial Policy". The USA was going to be falling
> behind them and eventually they would control the world economy
They didn't realize how quickly we could train cheap indian slave labor
to do the work and cut the heads off our old to save money - silly
japanese and thier putting family first ideals - they will never compete
successfully like that!! Must kill old people!!
> and even buy up most of the valuable property in the USA: Rockeller
> Center and Pebble Beach, lots of hotels and our companies, etc.
Its so funny, at the time IBM was doing xray imprinting of logic gates on
motherboards and control circuits, an IBM scientist came up with laser
imprinting, better detail, faster operation, more circuits - less space -
IBM execs said nope, too soon for that shit, we can make money on xray
tech for many more years, he left IBM, went to some japanese company,
finalized the development there, and IBM wound up leasing the technology
from japan that they basically funded - retards. Bill Gates told them to
cannabalize thier own product first before the competitor eats it years
earlier, no one ever learns in the ivory towers.
> Then during the 1990’s everything changed. Japan fell into a decade
> long recession, sold off their US holding at a loss, the yen dropped
> to under a penny and the question was what happened to them and why.
>
>
> Georgists said it was because they directed their tax base away
> from land.
They didn't kill thier old and train cheap slave labor as quickly as we
did. We stayed more competitive - cut the costs everywhere we could,
screw grandpa and the current american worker - this was economic
warfare.
> Supply Siders said it was because their taxes were too high.
>
> Conservatives said Japan was an example of failed Keynesianism.
>
> http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.7119/pub_detail.asp
>
> Paul Krugman offered the interesting idea that it was demographics:
> too many old people.
>
> http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/japan.html
>
> But for the last several years Japan has pulled out of its recession
> and is on the rebound again.
>
>
> Why? Do they tax land again? Have they cut their tax rates? Have
> they stopped trying to deficit-spend their way to prosperity?
> Did they get younger?
Good questions, I know what worked at ibm, mass layoffs of the old,
massive training of slave labor to replace the young, IBM stock did well.
I quit my job when I saw my future.
>
> ,,,,,,,
> _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
> (_)
> jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
> USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
> binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
> call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
>
>
--
Government policy in interest rates, and on finance generally, has been
marked by vacillation, wishful thinking, electoral expediency of the most
shameful type towards the end of last year, contortions and
contradictions, all to accommodate the redneck economics of the National
Country Party. (Harsard Aug.27 1981)
Johnny 5
news:Xns9525A33B...@216.168.3.44:
Do what IBM did, kill SS and import a lot of young mexicans who will work
for slave wages.
Johnny 5
> Richard <rh...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1b5e1980f...@news.verizon.net:
>
>> Ch...@Home.com wrote...
>>
>>> IMHO, it was age and benefits. The same thing that will hit us in
>>> 10-20 years unless the idiots in congress can keep their hands off
>>> the FICA tax monies. Only our problem will be worst because our
>>> families are not the same as Japanese families. We will be up to our
>>> ears in extremely poor old people flipping bergers for heart
>>> medications.
>>
>> And since those jobs make up a large percentage of the jobs high
>> school kids work at, they'll start knocking off old folks just to
>> reduce the supply of burger flippers.
>>
>
> ......... and a bill will be introduced to privatize the killing. Game
Go watch a movie called Logans Run - The hunters will be called SANDMAN.
> reserves will be set up where old folks will be killed for sport.
> Anybody who's anybody will have a grannies head stuffed and mounted in
> their dens. For those in the wildes, a bounty system will be set up.
> Hundred dollar tax rebate for each skin turned in. The Helmsley's of
> the world will all be wearing 'to die for' granny skin shoes and
> matching pocketbooks.
>
> What a wonderful world the truely greedy will have. Mint Julips on the
> porch while the screams of the poor can be heard softly rolling on the
> clouds of toxic waste.
Robert J. Kolker
Johnny 5 wrote:
>
> Do what IBM did, kill SS and import a lot of young mexicans who will work
> for slave wages.
SS (Social Security) is alive. We don't import Mexicans for technical
work. We export such jobs to Mexico where they do not have environmental
laws (see Maquiladoro). Mexicans are imported mainly for stoop labor in
U.S. fields and orchards. How many Americans do you know who will pick
cabbages and tomatoes 12 hours a day (during the summer harvest) for
minimum wages, no health insurance and no workman's compensation?
Bob Kolker
Johnny 5
news:349Jc.71593$JR4.54149@attbi_s54:
>
>
> Johnny 5 wrote:
>
>>
>> Do what IBM did, kill SS and import a lot of young mexicans who will
>> work for slave wages.
>
>
> SS (Social Security) is alive.
Not for long.
We don't import Mexicans for technical
> work. We export such jobs to Mexico where they do not have
> environmental laws
Ibm brought the indians, trained them then exported all the jobs back to
india - what's the difference?
Robert J. Kolker
Johnny 5 wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:349Jc.71593$JR4.54149@attbi_s54:
>
>
>>
>>Johnny 5 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Do what IBM did, kill SS and import a lot of young mexicans who will
>>>work for slave wages.
>>
>>
>>SS (Social Security) is alive.
>
>
> Not for long.
Your opinion. The -fact- is, that social security is alive.
>
> We don't import Mexicans for technical
>
>>work. We export such jobs to Mexico where they do not have
>>environmental laws
>
>
> Ibm brought the indians, trained them then exported all the jobs back to
> india - what's the difference?
Now its Indians. I thought you were talking about Mexicans. The Mexicans
come to this country to do stoop labor and shit jobs no American would
take. We rarely import Mexicans to do high grade technological work.
The difference is that the guys and gals in Bangalore do for twenty
cents on the dollar what used to be done here. It is a matter of cost.
All things being equal cheaper sells better than expensive. If Americans
would give up minimum wages, workman's compensation and health laws the
jobs would not go to India.
Bob Kolker
Chief
news:349Jc.71593$JR4.54149@attbi_s54:
>
>
Where do you live? Here in the south the jobs that HS kids used to do
that paid above minimun wages in construction, road crews, lawn care and
many more jobs are gone. No HS kid can compete with older and experienced
illegals. These wages used to help buy transportation for kids of the
lower middle class and help pay for college. You folks that apparently
don't spend much time talking with people making up the majority are so
out of step with the problems in this country you might as well be
French. As for the farm jobs in the 60's what you say was true - the
mexicans were crop pickers. I'm from Kansas and today they are taking the
decent farming jobs that were used by the kids in the midwest for the
same purposes discribed above. To continue to spout the Bush lies in a
parrot like manner is harming your fellow Americans. I expect the
politicians to do so but not other Americans with a half a brain and the
usual senses. Of course you might be one of the many today who don't seem
to give a damn about the lower and lower middle class kids and families.
Robert J. Kolker
Chief wrote:
> French. As for the farm jobs in the 60's what you say was true - the
> mexicans were crop pickers. I'm from Kansas and today they are taking the
> decent farming jobs that were used by the kids in the midwest for the
> same purposes discribed above.
A job cannot be taken, it can only be given, by the employer. No one
owns a job. If the Mexicans can do it better or cheaper then so be it.
Mexicans apparently don't suffer from the delusion that the world owes
them a living. They get out and work.
Do you want to improve employment for Americans? Then:
1. End minimum wage.
2. End workman's compensation.
3. Eliminate labor unions.
4. End health and safety laws.
Once that is done, Americans will have all the work they can do.
Bob Kolker
Johnny 5
>> Not for long.
>
> Your opinion. The -fact- is, that social security is alive.
BWAHAHAHA! There used to be 47 workers to 1 beneficiary, in 2030 there
will be 2 workers to 1 beneficiary, my god man - what rhetoric are you
smoking? Pass the BLUNT and let me hit some of that shit - I need to be
in fantasyland with you! SS may still be here in 2030, but it won't be
what it was in the past or what it is today, something different and less
is my prediction.
>> We don't import Mexicans for technical
>>
>>>work. We export such jobs to Mexico where they do not have
>>>environmental laws
>>
>> Ibm brought the indians, trained them then exported all the jobs back
>> to india - what's the difference?
>
> Now its Indians.
You lost the analogy, IBM with indians, the USA with mexicans. Same
difference.
I thought you were talking about Mexicans. The
> Mexicans come to this country to do stoop labor and shit jobs no
> American would take. We rarely import Mexicans to do high grade
> technological work.
Oh my friend, you are up in your ivory tower with disconnected abstracts,
come down into the line of fire with me and learn about redneck economics
with real people. In my old city one of the largest HIGH TECH firms was
an alarm and surveillance company that also did home theater and network
installs for the industrial firms. The owner had a program set up with
the local university to host boys and girls from many foreign countries,
in the 80's and early 90's most of those came from croatia (war refugees
work cheap) or the ukraine, by the mid 90's til today most of them are
coming from mexico.
I consider myself a good computer geek, but these mexicans were coming in
taking away my customers with the local businessmen, they worked cheaper,
three or thirty of them to set up a 200 system network versus 1 of me -
you are not living in reality. Dumb Jose isn't so dumb after all, he is
very good at reading the same info you read and learning linux and python
and being a star in software programming and networking hardware. One of
the dumb farm kids from mexico got a scholarship to go to australia for
nanotech graduate research. Now here is what you don't see in that ivory
tower of abstracts - the mexico farmers took over the low wage and
agricultural jobs of this city, as they wanted computer work - they did
not call me, even if I had cheaper rates - they called geek mexico boy -
he spoke spanish after all and was one of them - I had no way to compete
for that business - the positive feedback loop between these 2 eventually
squeezes whitey out of the economy. Now I loved these kids from mexico,
still friends with many of them, but the culture clash is really causing
problems for both groups down in the valleys - us whiteys and mexico boys
up in the ivory tower had lots of fun hanging out together. There was a
lot of conflict in that town between the two cultures, and violence is
escalating. Violence is generally a bad thing no?
> The difference is that the guys and gals in Bangalore do for twenty
> cents on the dollar what used to be done here.
Right, but IBM sent them back to india after they trained them, so that
me and india boy didn't get in a fight in the lunch hall because we both
felt the other was an economic threat to each other.
> It is a matter of cost.
> All things being equal cheaper sells better than expensive.
The white businessmen hired the cheap mexico boy, the mexico people hired
the cheap and expensive mexico boy, mexico boy got all the business, and
then the white businessmans daughter comes home pregnant with mexico baby
and he gets mad and his son comes home with mexico knife from bar fight
wedged in his lung and he gets mad. He starts paying for whitey again,
and mexico boy takes this as a threat, the 2 cultures begin to isolate
more and more from each other trying to compete over the same limited
economy and violence increases.
If
> Americans would give up minimum wages, workman's compensation and
> health laws the jobs would not go to India.
>
Americans will give that shit up, not willingly, they will be FORCED into
it, yet I went to walmart yesterday and the mexico boys and street bumbs
are trying to get me to sign a 10 dollar an hour minimum wage petition -
BWAHAHA! Some people think money grows on trees - HAHAHA!
http://www.mises.org/mmmp/mmmp9.asp
It is one of the effects of the international division of labor that it
creates an interdependency of wages all over the world.
With perfect mobility of labor, capital, and commodities all over the
earth's surface there would be a tendency for an equalization both in the
rate of profit and in wages for labor of the same kind. Capital and labor
would be shifted from the areas where the natural conditions of
production are less favorable to areas where they are more favorable
until this equalization has been reached. Under the actual state of
things where there are very effective institutional barriers against the
transfer both of capital and labor from country to country there exist
conspicuous differences in the rate of profit and in the level of wages.
But the interdependency of both is nevertheless a fact.
One of the factors determining wages in Japan is the circumstance that
the Japanese are not free to emigrate because no country tolerates such
an immigration. One of the factors determining wages in the United States
is the fact that immigration to that country is restricted. Labor is not
free to move from Japan to the United States. But there is nevertheless a
connection between the height of wages in both countries. This connection
is effected by the movability of the produce of labor. The commodities
produced by either nation enter into competition. In a world of free
trade for commodities they would have to be sold at the same price
notwithstanding the allowance made for transport. The faculty of a
country's trade unions to raise the level of wages seems therefore
limited by the competition of goods produced abroad by cheaper labor. The
trade unions of the countries with more favorable conditions for
production and higher wages would like to see the wages in the less
favored countries rise. But that could not be attained otherwise than by
shifting hands from the less favored to the more favored countries. It is
precisely this that the trade unions of the better endowed countries wish
to avoid. But without a change in the distribution of workers over the
earth's surface equality of wages is impossible.
Under the existing system of immigration restrictions equilibrium wages
are different from the level they would attain in a world where labor is
free to migrate; they are higher in some countries and lower in others.
But there is for every area, within which there are no barriers for the
transfer of labor from one place to another, a uniform equilibrium rate
of wages for every kind of labor. As long as effective wages do not
exceed this equilibrium level employment and unemployment are normal. It
is in the nature of the equilibrium rate to make supply and demand on the
labor market coincide.
If the trade unions of the countries endowed with more favorable
conditions for production were to limit their activities to checking
immigration, and if they were satisfied with the rise of equilibrium
wages due to these restrictions, they would not increase unemployment
figures. But if the trade unions try, as they really do, to raise the
wages above this equilibrium rate they bring about lasting unemployment
of a great part of the working class. Of course this is in a market
economy the unavoidable consequence of a wage rate exceeding the
equilibrium rate.
Entrepreneurs ascribe their inability to employ more hands at the rates
fixed by collective bargaining to the pressure of foreign competition.
Public opinion therefore considers barriers erected against imports from
abroad as an effective measure of fighting unemployment without lowering
the level of wages. One of the most popular arguments in favor of
protection is to defend the national standard of living against the
dumping of goods produced by cheap labor.
Now people call dumping the import of goods produced by cheap labor and
regard the exclusion of such goods as quite justified. That means for the
countries which on the one hand are endowed by nature and by the
plenitude of their capital with the most favorable conditions for
production, and on the other hand keep out foreign immigrants, that they
consider high import duties, quotas and even complete self-sufficiency as
justified.
If a country neither tolerates the immigration of labor, nor the imports
of goods produced abroad by cheap labor, nor the export of capital, it is
on the way to complete economic isolation.
The Anglo-Saxon and some other Western countries are doubly responsible
for the low rate of wages and for the low standard of living in the over-
populated areas: first, by making immigration practically impossible, and
secondly, by fighting the import of manufactured goods. In their
endeavour to maintain their own higher standard of living they exert a
pressure on the standard of living in other countries, especially in
Central, Eastern and Southern Europe, and in Japan. They reduce their
imports of manufactured goods but at the same time increase their exports
of food, raw materials, and manufactured goods; the consequence is a fall
in the total volume of international trade.
The trend to make trade barriers more effective and to isolate the
countries economically more and more is therefore an outcome of a policy
which wishes to fight unemployment by protection for home production. The
idea underlying this policy is misleading. The low wages abroad become
still lower and the country's own selling abroad decreases in the same
proportion as imports are reduced.
It is hopeless to try to do away with unemployment by a policy of trade
barriers. That wages higher than the equilibrium rate can only be
maintained when a considerable part of the labor supply is unemployed is
for an isolated country no less the case than for a country buying and
selling abroad. It is a fallacy to think that in the long run
unemployment can be caused by foreign competition. Foreign competition,
or more correctly the fact that the home market forms a part only of the
international market, is one of the factors determining the height of the
equilibrium wage rate. At the equilibrium wage rate unemployment is only
a transitory phenomenon. Foreign competition may make equilibrium wages
lower but cannot directly cause lasting large scale unemployment.
If a country tries to keep out the influence of the foreign labor markets
from its home market it has to withdraw from the international division
of labor. But then it deprives its people of all the advantages of
international economic cooperation. That means that in the long run
commodity wages have to go down. The policy of economic isolation is in
no way the right means of improving a nation's standard of living.
V
The Over-Population Argument
The over-population argument for protection is nothing but the wages
argument as seen from the point of view of the over-populated countries.
In these countries wages are low and there is under the present
conditions of migration barriers no hope of making the wages higher by
emigration.
Equilibrium wages are low in these countries. But as long as actual wages
do not exceed the equilibrium rate there is no lasting large scale
unemployment. Equilibrium wages of course may fall extremely low as
compared with foreign wages.
Low wages are very unsatisfactory and both governments and trade unions
are in search of a remedy. Unfortunately, the only effective
remedy—emigration—cannot be taken into consideration. Minimum wages,
whether imposed by government interference or by collective bargaining,
only increase unemployment. To fight unemployment an effort is then made
to protect home production. But this raises commodity prices and lowers
the standard of living still more.
The recriminations of the over-populated countries against the more
fortunate countries are justified. The countries where equilibrium wages
are higher harm them in a twofold way: by making immigration impossible
and by closing their markets to the import of their produce.
Nevertheless, these over-populated countries themselves make their own
conditions only worse by closing themselves to their own markets. In
doing so they effect nothing else than a further lowering of their
standard of living. [5]
In this case, too, protection and self-sufficiency are remedies that only
increase the evil.
Rue The Day
> What happened to Japan?
>
> During the 1970?s and 80?s it seemed like everyone was worried about
> employing TQM (remember that?) and the ideas of William E. Demming.
> They had an "Industrial Policy". The USA was going to be falling
> behind them and eventually they would control the world economy
> and even buy up most of the valuable property in the USA: Rockeller
> Center and Pebble Beach, lots of hotels and our companies, etc.
>
>
>
> to under a penny and the question was what happened to them and why.
>
>
> Georgists said it was because they directed their tax base away
> from land.
>
> Supply Siders said it was because their taxes were too high.
>
> Conservatives said Japan was an example of failed Keynesianism.
>
> http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.7119/pub_detail.asp
>
> Paul Krugman offered the interesting idea that it was demographics:
> too many old people.
>
> http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/japan.html
>
>
>
> But for the last several years Japan has pulled out of its recession
> and is on the rebound again.
>
>
> Why? Do they tax land again? Have they cut their tax rates? Have
> they stopped trying to deficit-spend their way to prosperity?
> Did they get younger?
What happened to Japan was the creation of an enormous asset bubble
followed by the bursting of that bubble. In many ways, the aftermath
was similar to the Great Depression in America, the key difference
being that it wasn't made worse by backwards monetary and fiscal
policy. Now, regarding what could have been done from a policy
standpoint to prevent the drawn out recession after the bubble burst,
I'm not sure that there is an answer to that question. There are
limits to the effectiveness of monetary and fiscal policy once the
process has been set into motion.
Chief
Ah ... the mantra of the monumentally greedy of the meist religion.
Well let's see the reforms that started with Teddy Roosevelt and
continued until Reagan built the middleclass that formed the base of the
consumption engine that made this country great. Things like the GI bill
after WWII, Social Security, Medicare, the Unions and labor laws, took
the country out of the hands of the greedy few and put it in the hands of
the American people. Child labor was stopped. Sweat shops were closed.
Corporations were forced to share the profits with the people whose sweat
earned it and in an equitable manner.
To think the corporations are moral forces for good ignores their
history. Love canal, tabacco, exploding gas tanks, shoddy tires, drugs
that cause birth defects, and chemicals that poison the environment are
just a few of the ways that corporations show their inability to act in a
just and moral way. Time after time they have been forced to be
responsible for their actions. Most of the time kicking and screaming all
the way. Responsibility for ones actions seems something republicans and
libertarians only apply to individuals and only individuals of the lower
classes.
Bush, with the support of the greedy few is trying to bring the US back
to the days of McKinnley and the Robber Barons. People that support him
in this goal are worthless parasites to any democratic society formed for
the common good. Their ideas are tired old ideas taken out and dusted off
occasionally throughout our history.
Now and then they make inroads but there is always a backlash that
reverses these dispicable trends. As long as there is one man one vote
and the right to vote is not based on property, as these people would
love, there is no way to pick the pockets of labor in any enduring way.
What's really strange is that history's lessons are lost on the far
right.
Johnny 5
> A job cannot be taken, it can only be given, by the employer. No one
> owns a job. If the Mexicans can do it better or cheaper then so be it.
Thats fine, let them take it in MEXICO, I am all for it, the indians do
it cheaper in india, keep them there, keep us here, keep mexico boy in
mexico, all of us trade globally, wages equalize, and the bar fights down
at the pub are not mexicans pulling knives on my son - why invite the
culture clash? THere is no NEED to do that.
> Mexicans apparently don't suffer from the delusion that the world owes
> them a living. They get out and work.
I want them to get out and work in mexico, I will buy thier cheaper
products, my unions will HAVE to lower thier wages to compete, we don't
fight based on racial division or culture clash - why do you want to
create culture clash that kills people?
> Do you want to improve employment for Americans? Then:
I want violence and suffering and hatred to be minimized, importing
mexico boy here and keeping him here creates violence.
> 1. End minimum wage.
I agree 100%.
> 2. End workman's compensation.
>
> 3. Eliminate labor unions.
>
> 4. End health and safety laws.
No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, moderation in all
things until the equalibrium comes - there are peaceful ways to equalize,
then there are violent ways.
>
> Once that is done, Americans will have all the work they can do.
Absolutely, stop importing mexico boy, let him stay in his culture in
mexico and not stab my son and cut up his lung.
> Bob Kolker
Johnny 5
news:Xns95267214...@216.168.3.44:
> Ah ... the mantra of the monumentally greedy of the meist religion.
>
> Well let's see the reforms that started with Teddy Roosevelt and
> continued until Reagan built the middleclass that formed the base of
> the consumption engine that made this country great. Things like the
> GI bill after WWII, Social Security, Medicare, the Unions and labor
> laws, took the country out of the hands of the greedy few and put it
> in the hands of the American people.
You have to look at the big picture though, it took the AMERICAN people
out from under the sword of damacles and put it on people outside our
borders. We need to fight for freedom of oppression in these other
countries and bring teddy roosevelt to them too.
> Child labor was stopped. Sweat
> shops were closed.
Not in taiwan, malaysisa, hong kong, singapore, phillipines, china,
mexico, brazil, etc etc etc
> Corporations were forced to share the profits with
> the people whose sweat earned it and in an equitable manner.
The little girl in china who got acid poured on her because she wasn't
working as hard in the sweat shop as another little girl deserved better
- way reduce wages here - why reduce OSHA here - use our army and
policies to bring roosevelt to the rest of the world, BRING ALL OF US UP
in the rising tide.
> To think the corporations are moral forces for good ignores their
> history.
Right.
> Love canal, tabacco, exploding gas tanks, shoddy tires, drugs
> that cause birth defects, and chemicals that poison the environment
> are just a few of the ways that corporations show their inability to
> act in a just and moral way. Time after time they have been forced to
> be responsible for their actions. Most of the time kicking and
> screaming all the way.
Power corrupts, absolute power absolutely.
Responsibility for ones actions seems something
> republicans and libertarians only apply to individuals and only
> individuals of the lower classes.
What is the difference between a rich republican and rich democrat - they
both have stock in the multicorps enslaving children in sweatshops
overseas - why do people have to polarize in inefficient ways?
> Bush, with the support of the greedy few is trying to bring the US
> back
> to the days of McKinnley and the Robber Barons. People that support
> him in this goal are worthless parasites to any democratic society
> formed for the common good. Their ideas are tired old ideas taken out
> and dusted off occasionally throughout our history.
Rich Bush, Rich Kerry, Rich Judges on the judicial branch, Rich
congressman made up of more lawyers than any other profession - you act
like scylla is better than charybdis - what's the difference - both
enslave children in sweatshops.
Robert B. Fien
price "whichever is greater" (US is "whichever is less") which gave (gives?)
Japan a "debt financing" advantage in inflationary cycles but, when property
values dropped, loan covenents (loan/value ratios) went upside down, bank
portfolios went upside down, lending (especially working capital
lines-of-credit) dried up and.......recession.
That's one theory at least.
"Jim Blair" <s...@sig.com> wrote in message
news:cd1all$3e7$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
Jim Blair
>
>I remember TQM, they started that shit at IBM in 95 and then a few months
>later laid off 7K people in my section right before their 20 year
>retirement - didn't have to pay all that burden at that point - ....
Hi,
When I worked for Du Pont for 2 years (1963-5) that was the way pensions
worked. But one change Reagan made was "vesting": it started at 10 years
but that was later reduced to 5 years. After the vesting time, the money
in the pension fund belongs to the worker not the company. So if you
worked for a company for 19 years (of the 20 needed for full retirement),
and then quit or are fired, whatever pension money you would be due is
yours to take, or rollover into another pension.
Also during the 1980's the IRA became available to most workers in
addition to, or as a alternative to, pension plans.
So the problem that you describe and which was real before the 1980's is
not an issue today, and that thanks mostly to Ronnie Reagan.
Jim Blair
..
>>
>
>IMHO, it was age and benefits.
Hi,
When Krugman suggested the aging population it sounded reasonable to me.
But since the current recovery, that cannot have been the explanation: did
the Japanese suddenly get younger since 2000? Has there been a large
influx of younger people in Japan?
>....The same thing that will hit us in 10-20
>years unless the idiots in congress can keep their hands off the FICA tax
>monies.
??? The money collected by the FICA cannot be "saved", it MUST be spent on
something. Some is used to pay out Social Security, and the "surplus"
must be spent on "other things". Do you think that they could stockpile
100 dollar bills in a "lock box" in the treasury department basement?
(Al Gore and others seem to think there is such a locked box ;-)
>...Only our problem will be worst because our families are not the
>same as Japanese families.
?? How so? Explain.
>...We will be up to our ears in extremely poor
>old people flipping bergers for heart medications.
>
The elderly in the US are the richest segment of the population. Some
people worry about the exact opposite: that the old geezers are and will
continue to own and run the country.
Richard
> Richard <rh...@hotmail.com> wrote in
...while Calvinistically assuring themselves that the poor are
suffering because they're simply lazy bastards who "deserve it."
Johnny 5
> explanation: did the Japanese suddenly get younger since 2000? Has
> there been a large influx of younger people in Japan?
Maybe thier old who were big spenders and consumers and workers stopped
spending and consuming and sit in the house and just look at the 4 walls
all day, my grandmother doesn't even know her own name anymore - so yes
they didn't get younger physically, but thier spending and consuming
habits did. Their benefits went down. I live in florida, all the old
people sit in thier trailer and look at the four walls or watch tv, if
they all got out into the city though, the roads would be so clogged, the
restaurants so clogged, the library so clogged you couldn't hire enough
people to service them all - so as the old went into their caves and sat
down, the services and people need to SERVICE them also declined.
> ??? The money collected by the FICA cannot be "saved", it MUST be
> spent on something.
I already told you, they will increase mine and your FICA, abolish SS and
give the money to Congressman lawyers who decide votes a big PAY RAISE
for being so smart to increase fica and cut SS - that is where it will be
spent - HAHA! Congressional salaries and more gubbment red tape is where
it will be spent.
> Some is used to pay out Social Security, and the
> "surplus" must be spent on "other things".
500K trips for condoleeza to fly on a private jet to taj mahal is where
it is spent.
Do you think that they
> could stockpile 100 dollar bills in a "lock box" in the treasury
> department basement? (Al Gore and others seem to think there is such a
> locked box ;-)
HAHA! I loved the sat nite live skit with al gore and his lockbox!
>>...Only our problem will be worst because our families are not the
>>same as Japanese families.
>
> ?? How so? Explain.
Go to that anthropology link I keep posting all over this forum
http://anthro.palomar.edu/social/soc_3.htm
There are many potential environmental influences that help to shape
personality. Child rearing practices are especially critical. In North
America, children are usually raised in ways that encourage them to
become self-reliant and independent. Children are often allowed to act
somewhat like equals to their parents. For instance, they are included
in making decisions about what type of food and entertainment the family
will have on a night out. Children are given allowances and small jobs
around the house to teach them how to be responsible for themselves. In
contrast, children in China are usually encouraged to think and act as a
member of their family and to suppress there own wishes when they are in
conflict with the needs of the family. Independence and self-reliance
are viewed as an indication of family failure and are discouraged. It is
not surprising that traditionally Chinese children have not been allowed
to act as equals to their parents.
So you SEE, brittney spears here is gonna smoke crack rock while grandpa
starves to death singing OOPS I DID IT AGAIN, but slant eye brittney is
gonna kill herself working to death making sure grandpa gets some rice.
>>...We will be up to our ears in extremely poor
>>old people flipping bergers for heart medications.
>>
>
> The elderly in the US are the richest segment of the population.
Not for long, when that stock market blows up in thier face and the us
dollar goes down the toilet they aren't gonna be so rich anymore. Why is
brittney gonna buy the bonds to recycle the debt when all she wants is
crack rock?
Some
> people worry about the exact opposite: that the old geezers are and
> will continue to own and run the country.
BWAHAHAHAHAH! HAHAHAH! I really like your posts a lot, they are the
voice of reason, but my man you need to go into the dance clubs and turn
on MTV and check out the message Brittney is preaching to the masses -
they aren't gonna do SHIT for grandpa and try as he might to make them DO
THINGS FOR HIM, brittney is gonna sing her song - SLAVE FOR YOU to make
grandpa thinks she cares - and then she is gonna sing her song OOPS I DID
IT AGAIN, I PLAYED WITH YOUR HEART OH BABY! And grandpa is gonna wake up
and say fuck, brittney did a kaiser soze on my ass!
Chief
> Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
> ..
>>>
>>
>>IMHO, it was age and benefits.
>
> Hi,
>
> When Krugman suggested the aging population it sounded reasonable to
> me. But since the current recovery, that cannot have been the
> explanation: did the Japanese suddenly get younger since 2000? Has
> there been a large influx of younger people in Japan?
>
They cut back on benefits - quite drastically. I know a guy who works
there and he said there are many more poor old folks walking the streets
thee days.
>>....The same thing that will hit us in 10-20
>>years unless the idiots in congress can keep their hands off the FICA
>>tax monies.
>
> ??? The money collected by the FICA cannot be "saved", it MUST be
> spent on something. Some is used to pay out Social Security, and the
> "surplus" must be spent on "other things". Do you think that they
> could stockpile 100 dollar bills in a "lock box" in the treasury
> department basement? (Al Gore and others seem to think there is such a
> locked box ;-)
True but money can be invested in instruments that increase it's worth
and benefit all of us. Use it to pay off the debt for one.
>
>
>>...Only our problem will be worst because our families are not the
>>same as Japanese families.
>
> ?? How so? Explain.
>
Families here don't routinely take care of their parents. More parents
end up take care of their kids well into adulthood.
>>...We will be up to our ears in extremely poor
>>old people flipping bergers for heart medications.
>>
>
> The elderly in the US are the richest segment of the population. Some
> people worry about the exact opposite: that the old geezers are and
> will continue to own and run the country.
>
There was an article just in the last week in the times that said that
has reversed and the seniors are where the fastest growth in poverty and
debt is.
Medical cost have gone up more than any investment. Seniors on a fixed
income have had to weather a terrible market, low interest rate for bonds
and higher medical costs. Also their grown kids haven't faired to well
these past years and many have paid their bills while they were out of
work or loaned them money for their grandkids college. I am a senior.
Believe me. Next time you see some old guys at the local eatery sit and
have a chat.
You know we used to have neighbors and neiborhoods where we all knew the
others problems and helped when we could. Now days it's not just the
politicians and media that's out of touch with the American people. We
are out of touch with each other. Really sad and somehow my generation
messed up this country and raised kids with so little concern for those
around them. Damn shame. The greatest generation raised the worst
generation. For the life of me I can not understand how we got to the low
point we have reached.
Johnny 5
> Hi,
>
> When I worked for Du Pont for 2 years (1963-5) that was the way
> pensions worked. But one change Reagan made was "vesting": it started
> at 10 years but that was later reduced to 5 years. After the vesting
> time, the money in the pension fund belongs to the worker not the
> company. So if you worked for a company for 19 years (of the 20
> needed for full retirement), and then quit or are fired, whatever
> pension money you would be due is yours to take, or rollover into
> another pension.
I know all that shit, IBM fucked them out of their VESTING - the problem
is you TRUST the gubbment and multicorp to take care of you when you get
old, IBM fucked over thier employees - read this:
http://www.allianceibm.org/ex-ibmersdatashowagebias.htm
Just why is open to question. IBM denies age bias. The suit says IBM
targeted older workers because they cost the company more, but that age
underlies the results, no matter how you slice it. And the money hinging
on the outcome likely runs into the tens of millions of dollars, perhaps
more, a lawyer for the ex-IBMers says.
Antonio Rivera of Poughquag, a plaintiff in the suit and a principal
organizer of the campaign to bring it, started going through the data and
making charts after he was struck by what he saw happening to himself.
''In my group, 16 of us were let go and all of us, without exception,
were over 50,'' Rivera said. ''Some of these folks had 33 years with the
company.''
Rivera said he believes IBM set up the layoffs to affect older, higher-
paid workers more, but to still appear reasonable.
''They have masters doing this,'' he said. ''They take the best
statisticians so the numbers work out.''
Their formal complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for northern
California in San Jose Oct. 7, alleges IBM violated the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act and a related law, the Older Workers
Benefits Protection Act, or OWBPA.
But it also asserts IBM trampled the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, better known as ERISA.
Bringing suit under ERISA is a new angle because it enables the
plaintiffs to put the issue of money motives directly on the table. Money
issues aren't clearly covered in the age discrimination act, but they are
in ERISA.
''IBM terminated plaintiffs in violation of ERISA in order to avoid its
increasing pension cost obligations to employees with greater years of
service,'' the complaint claims. It also says IBM avoided general vesting
of pension benefits, the increasing cost of health benefits and retiree
or dependent health benefits.
> Also during the 1980's the IRA became available to most workers in
> addition to, or as a alternative to, pension plans.
>
> So the problem that you describe and which was real before the 1980's
> is not an issue today, and that thanks mostly to Ronnie Reagan.
Ronnie Reagan is in the ground pushing up daisies - I need the gippers
fist up my old bosses ass at IBM to keep that crook honest - a journalist
in Russia just got murdered, he told people angels were looking out for
him, why didn't they take the bullet? Where was michael landon when you
needed him?
Johnny 5
news:Xns95268AC0...@216.168.3.44:
> True but money can be invested in instruments that increase it's worth
> and benefit all of us. Use it to pay off the debt for one.
Man are you serious? Condoleeza has to pay her nail technician, her hair
stylist, her personal assistant, her personal chef, her personal trainer,
her jeweler, etc etc You think she is gonna spend it on helping YOU?
BWAHAHA!
> Families here don't routinely take care of their parents. More parents
> end up take care of their kids well into adulthood.
The children are our future, but dammit if the feminazis didn't forget
that when they told brittney to stand on her own, piss on her man, and
close her legs. Tammy Wynette said stand by your man, Patti Davis sang
CRAZY. Brittney Spears sings OOPS I DID IT AGAIN. BLU CANTRELL sings
SHE SPENT ALL HER PROBLEMS AWAY on SUCKERBOYS CREDIT CARD with SOLE AND
MIA - HAHA!
> There was an article just in the last week in the times that said that
> has reversed and the seniors are where the fastest growth in poverty
> and debt is.
But Brittney sang I am a SLAVE FOR YOU.
> Medical cost have gone up more than any investment.
Homeland security investments are going up fast.
> Seniors on a fixed
> income have had to weather a terrible market, low interest rate for
> bonds and higher medical costs.
My poor grandmother lies in her piss in the nursing home for days at a
time.
Also their grown kids haven't faired
> to well these past years and many have paid their bills while they
> were out of work or loaned them money for their grandkids college.
Oh brother, spoiled brittney Jr.
> am a senior. Believe me. Next time you see some old guys at the local
> eatery sit and have a chat.
Now come on geezer, get back in the trailer and turn on TVLAND and watch
ed sullivan reruns, you know you are gonna get run over out here in the
REAL world.
> You know we used to have neighbors and neiborhoods where we all knew
> the others problems and helped when we could. Now days it's not just
> the politicians and media that's out of touch with the American
> people. We are out of touch with each other.
And the last thing we need is MORE DIVERSITY and DIVISION, we need
cohesion, not multiculturalism.
> Really sad and somehow my
> generation messed up this country and raised kids with so little
> concern for those around them.
Its those fucking feminazis, they got a taste of freedom during the war
effort of ww2 and didnt want to be a slave to shitty kids anymore - burn
that bra woman! The damn towelheads see how fucked up it is over here
and are gonna blow the world up before they let our womens rights bra
burners fuck up thier children too. But I got faith in Brittney, Osama
just don't know what he is going up against, a crackhead with 5 pills of
speed in her is going to run circles around him.
Damn shame. The greatest generation
> raised the worst generation.
I blame you too for it you geezer! I have spent so much PAIN AND WASTED
EFFORT chasing that FUTILE CARROT because YOU and people like YOU taught
bad ideas that didn't work for the lONG TERM. No go get your
granddaughter to lay down with me and I might forgive you.
For the life of me I can not understand
> how we got to the low point we have reached.
Turn on MTV, watch hillary, janet reno, condeleeza rice - all these
career women - the CHILDREN were our FUTURE, not thier jobs - but you
taught them JOBS first, education first, then kids, and they waited till
they were 35 to have kids and thier DNA had broke down sufficiently at
that point that they had kids with OLDER DNA and the kids started being
born with all kinds of problems, ADD, downs, nature did things for a
reason, your liberal education was not gonna undo millions of years of
evolution with some leftie laws and politics - now we all suffer - hang
on for the ride!
Johnny 5
news:MPG.1b5f33fb9...@news.verizon.net:
> ...while Calvinistically assuring themselves that the poor are
> suffering because they're simply lazy bastards who "deserve it."
>
I was in alberqerque, NM last month - a bumb girl wanted a smoke, I told
her I dont do that shit, then she asked me for money, I told her I didn't
have any, then she asked me if I had any food, I went an asked the
greyhound ticket clerk where the closest food shelter was, he told me, I
went and told her, even offered to walk there with her, she said will you
go get it for me? In my younger days I would have been tempted to spit
in her face at that point, but I just laughed and walked away. You can
lead a horse to water, but if he doesn't drink whose fault is it?
Mason A. Clark
>Johnny 5 <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I remember TQM, they started that shit at IBM in 95 and then a few months
>>later laid off 7K people in my section right before their 20 year
>>retirement - didn't have to pay all that burden at that point - ....
>
>Hi,
>
>When I worked for Du Pont for 2 years (1963-5) that was the way pensions
>worked. But one change Reagan made was "vesting":
ERISA was 1974. Did Reagan cast a shadow then?
Wasn't Reagan's primary labor contribution to the breaking of the unions?
Chief
news:Xns952691BF5246...@65.32.1.6:
> Richard <rh...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1b5f33fb9...@news.verizon.net:
>
>
>> ...while Calvinistically assuring themselves that the poor are
>> suffering because they're simply lazy bastards who "deserve it."
>>
>
> I was in alberqerque, NM last month - a bumb girl wanted a smoke, I
> told her I dont do that shit, then she asked me for money, I told her
> I didn't have any, then she asked me if I had any food, I went an
> asked the greyhound ticket clerk where the closest food shelter was,
> he told me, I went and told her, even offered to walk there with her,
> she said will you go get it for me? In my younger days I would have
> been tempted to spit in her face at that point, but I just laughed and
> walked away. You can lead a horse to water, but if he doesn't drink
> whose fault is it?
>
>
And then there the families living in tents outside of Nashville Tenn who
work full time jobs and can't afford rent. For every example of why you
shouldn't offer I can show you ten where you should.
Johnny 5
news:Xns9526934E...@216.168.3.44:
> And then there the families living in tents outside of Nashville Tenn
> who work full time jobs and can't afford rent. For every example of
> why you shouldn't offer I can show you ten where you should.
>
I think we can reasonably agree then that the world is not black and
white and instead many shades of gray, not all people are lazy, but not
all people are deserving either. Blanket statements try to simplify
complexity and are often very wrong. I believe in making the water
available, and if they drink - wonderful, if not - time to cut them off.
Chief
65.32.1.8:
> Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9526934E...@216.168.3.44:
>
>> And then there the families living in tents outside of Nashville Tenn
>> who work full time jobs and can't afford rent. For every example of
>> why you shouldn't offer I can show you ten where you should.
>>
>
> I think we can reasonably agree then that the world is not black and
> white and instead many shades of gray, not all people are lazy, but not
> all people are deserving either. Blanket statements try to simplify
> complexity and are often very wrong. I believe in making the water
> available, and if they drink - wonderful, if not - time to cut them off.
>
>
I'll buy that. But the opportunity has to be there along with education,
medical for any children and a wage that allows people to live while
working. Just to clarify that for the black and white thinkers - no I don't
mean every worker get to buy a yacht. A family with a full time employee
should be able to buy food, pay rent and get to work. The basics.
Richard
> Johnny 5 <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:Xns9526A210EC497Johnny5yahoocom@
> 65.32.1.8:
>
> > Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote in
> >
> >> who work full time jobs and can't afford rent. For every example of
> >> why you shouldn't offer I can show you ten where you should.
> >
> > I think we can reasonably agree then that the world is not black and
> > white and instead many shades of gray, not all people are lazy, but not
> > all people are deserving either. Blanket statements try to simplify
> > complexity and are often very wrong. I believe in making the water
> > available, and if they drink - wonderful, if not - time to cut them off.
>
> I'll buy that. But the opportunity has to be there along with education,
> medical for any children and a wage that allows people to live while
> working. Just to clarify that for the black and white thinkers - no I don't
> mean every worker get to buy a yacht. A family with a full time employee
> should be able to buy food, pay rent and get to work. The basics.
Add in at least minimal health care and day care for kids of working
parents, and we're ready to sing Kume Bi Ya. :)
Larry Innes
developed a similar asset bubble right now through the same debt
financing process. One of the economists who has similar view is Kurt
Richebacherhttp. See
http://www.gold-eagle.com/research/richebacherndx.html
"Robert B. Fien" <Bob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<0McJc.20272$H87....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
ro...@telus.net
>IMHO, it was age and benefits.
It wasn't age or benefits. Seniors are still a small cohort in Japan,
and will be for another ten years. Benefits are sizable, but didn't
grow that much in the 80s or 90s. There is more flexibility in
Japanese benefit systems.
-- Roy L
Chief
Funny, I just saw an economist on CNN say that that is exactly what the
problem is. The addition he made was a significant reduction in birth rate
in Japan is also going to help increase the severity of the problem.
He said when asked if they saw problems the Japanese rep said they have a
high savings rate and that the money used to buy our debt would be used to
take care of their people instead of financing our debt. This would be a
huge problem for the US economy. Just like the consumers live in debt so
does America.
Johnny 5
news:ccf8cf06.04071...@posting.google.com:
> http://www.gold-eagle.com/research/richebacherndx.html
I read most of his stuff at www.321gold.com - makes sense to me,
liquidity trap is coming. So what japanese made money in the japanese
economy back then? I am in america and still want to invest here - where
are the best sectors given this expectation?
Jim Blair
>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:27:46 +0000 (UTC), Jim Blair <s...@sig.com> wrote:
>
>>Johnny 5 <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I remember TQM, they started that shit at IBM in 95 and then a few months
>>>later laid off 7K people in my section right before their 20 year
>>>retirement - didn't have to pay all that burden at that point - ....
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>When I worked for Du Pont for 2 years (1963-5) that was the way pensions
>>worked. But one change Reagan made was "vesting":
Mason A. Clark:
>
>ERISA was 1974. Did Reagan cast a shadow then?
Hi,
The law was first passed in 1974, but has been changed several times
since.
I was teaching during the 1970's and had my own IRA (not called that at
the time but it was an IRA in all but name). So I didn't pay much
attention to vesting rules until I was working for a private company
again, which was during the Reagan years. And that is when I became
covered. It started at 10 years for me but was scheduled to drop to 5
year as I recall.
The IRA existed from the 1970's also, but the numbeof people that could
qualify to have one was greatly expanded under Reagan.
>Wasn't Reagan's primary labor contribution to the breaking of the unions?
He is the only US president who was a union member. But he knew better
than to let a small union of government workers use an illegal strike to
cripple the US.
He told PATCO that he would fire them if they tried to pull an illegal
strike. They did, and he did. I think that sent a message to lots of
people, including the Soviets, that he meant what he said. Which made
being president a lot easier.
Jim Blair
>Jim Blair <s...@sig.com> wrote in news:cd3nk3$b75$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu:
>
>> ??? The money collected by the FICA cannot be "saved", it MUST be
>> spent on something.
>
>I already told you, they will increase mine and your FICA, abolish SS and
>give the money to Congressman lawyers who decide votes a big PAY RAISE
>for being so smart to increase fica and cut SS - that is where it will be
>spent - HAHA! Congressional salaries and more gubbment red tape is where
>it will be spent.
Hi,
Predictions.
>
>
>> Some is used to pay out Social Security, and the
>> "surplus" must be spent on "other things".
>
>500K trips for condoleeza to fly on a private jet to taj mahal is where
>it is spent.
You are complaining about how the government spends money. But if they
collect it (FICA or any other way), they MUST spend it on SOMETHING
>
> Do you think that they
>> could stockpile 100 dollar bills in a "lock box" in the treasury
>> department basement? (Al Gore and others seem to think there is such a
>> locked box ;-)
>
>HAHA! I loved the sat nite live skit with al gore and his lockbox!
Even SNL knows that Al's lockbox is a joke.
>
..
Johnny 5:
>>>...We will be up to our ears in extremely poor
>>>old people flipping bergers for heart medications.
>>>
>>
>> The elderly in the US are the richest segment of the population.
>
>Not for long, when that stock market blows up in thier face and the us
>dollar goes down the toilet they aren't gonna be so rich anymore.
Predictions again. I have been reading predictions of doom since I was 10
years old in 1945, and I have stopped believing them.
> Some
>> people worry about the exact opposite: that the old geezers are and
>> will continue to own and run the country.
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAH! HAHAHAH! I really like your posts a lot, they are the
>voice of reason,
:-)
>...but my man you need to go into the dance clubs and turn
>on MTV and check out the message Brittney is preaching to the masses -
>they aren't gonna do SHIT for grandpa and try as he might to make them DO
>THINGS FOR HIM, brittney is gonna sing her song - SLAVE FOR YOU to make
>grandpa thinks she cares - and then she is gonna sing her song OOPS I DID
>IT AGAIN, I PLAYED WITH YOUR HEART OH BABY! And grandpa is gonna wake up
>and say fuck, brittney did a kaiser soze on my ass!
I doubt that Brittney will be directing the next generation. But the old
folks have been complaining about the younger generation for as long as I
can remember.
Johnny 5
>>500K trips for condoleeza to fly on a private jet to taj mahal is
>>where it is spent.
>
> You are complaining about how the government spends money. But if they
> collect it (FICA or any other way), they MUST spend it on SOMETHING
I need more computers at my library more than I need it spent on
condoleeza.
>>Not for long, when that stock market blows up in thier face and the us
>>dollar goes down the toilet they aren't gonna be so rich anymore.
>
> Predictions again. I have been reading predictions of doom since I was
> 10 years old in 1945, and I have stopped believing them.
It's not doom, it will be liberation, capital will stop chasing bubbles
and be applied where it is needed.
> I doubt that Brittney will be directing the next generation. But the
I guess you and I just live in different worlds, I go out to walmart, and
the dance clubs, and the colleges and highschools and I see Brittney and
Christinia directing a good many number of things.
> old folks have been complaining about the younger generation for as
> long as I can remember.
--
Jim Blair
>Jim Blair <s...@sig.com> wrote in news:cd3nk3$b75$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu:
>
>> Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
>> ..
>>>>
>>>
>>>IMHO, it was age and benefits.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> When Krugman suggested the aging population it sounded reasonable to
>> me. But since the current recovery, that cannot have been the
>> explanation: did the Japanese suddenly get younger since 2000? Has
>> there been a large influx of younger people in Japan?
>>
>
>They cut back on benefits - quite drastically. I know a guy who works
>there and he said there are many more poor old folks walking the streets
>thee days.
Hi,
You think the decade long recession in Japan ended because they cut back
on benefits to the elderly? They still HAVE a large elderly population,
they just don't take care of them anymore and so the economy is booming?
That does not sound likely to me.
>
>>>....The same thing that will hit us in 10-20
>>>years unless the idiots in congress can keep their hands off the FICA
>>>tax monies.
>>
>> ??? The money collected by the FICA cannot be "saved", it MUST be
>> spent on something. Some is used to pay out Social Security, and the
>> "surplus" must be spent on "other things". Do you think that they
>> could stockpile 100 dollar bills in a "lock box" in the treasury
>> department basement? (Al Gore and others seem to think there is such a
>> locked box ;-)
>
>True but money can be invested in instruments that increase it's worth
>and benefit all of us.
Like the US government buying private corporate stocks?
>...Use it to pay off the debt for one.
But there is a deficit. Should the Fed be paying off existing govt bonds
early (and paying an interest panality) at the same time that it is
selling new bonds?
>>
>>
>>>...Only our problem will be worst because our families are not the
>>>same as Japanese families.
>>
>> ?? How so? Explain.
>>
>Families here don't routinely take care of their parents.
Thats why we have Social Security.
>....More parents
>end up take care of their kids well into adulthood.
More in the USA or in Japan?
>
>>>...We will be up to our ears in extremely poor
>>>old people flipping bergers for heart medications.
>>>
jeb:
>>
>> The elderly in the US are the richest segment of the population. Some
>> people worry about the exact opposite: that the old geezers are and
>> will continue to own and run the country.
>>
>There was an article just in the last week in the times that said that
>has reversed and the seniors are where the fastest growth in poverty and
>debt is.
There have always been poor elderly. Them being the richest is based on
averages. And I haven't seen any evidence that this changed. Politicians
are saying that it is the "working poor" and the "Middle Class" that are
suffering--from all that outsourcing that lowers prices for the rest of us
(especially the elderly)
>Medical cost have gone up more than any investment.
Yes, but we have Medicare and such. And not more than ANY investment.
Also the market value of investments (stocks and bonds) is not as
important to the retired as the income they generate.
>...Seniors on a fixed
>income have had to weather a terrible market, low interest rate for bonds
>and higher medical costs.
People on a "fixed income" have had relatively low inflation for 20 years,
and they are not much into the stock market--or else they would not be
"fixed income".
But yes, a booming economy helps those retirees with stocks and bonds.
>...Also their grown kids haven't faired to well
>these past years and many have paid their bills while they were out of
>work or loaned them money for their grandkids college. I am a senior.
>Believe me. Next time you see some old guys at the local eatery sit and
>have a chat.
Most of the retired that I see are when I go to the Ho Chunk casino. They
seem to have enough money to play slots for hours. Some even play
blackjack.
>
>You know we used to have neighbors and neiborhoods where we all knew the
>others problems and helped when we could. Now days it's not just the
>politicians and media that's out of touch with the American people. We
>are out of touch with each other.
I agree with that. When we first moved in, we knew all of the neighbours.
My wife's bridge group all lived within walking distance.
Now I know only a few of those in the area (and still remember the houses
by the names of their first owners most of whom moved out decades ago).
Now my wife's bridge group lives all over the county.
>...Really sad and somehow my generation
>messed up this country and raised kids with so little concern for those
>around them. Damn shame. The greatest generation raised the worst
>generation. For the life of me I can not understand how we got to the low
>point we have reached.
Cheer up. The kids today are OK, just different. Purple hair and nose
rings and.... Well maybe you have a point :-(
Chief
I did just see a thing on CNN in the past few days that indicated that
the rich/poor divide is increasing not only in the middleclass but also
the seniors.
>
>>Medical cost have gone up more than any investment.
>
> Yes, but we have Medicare and such. And not more than ANY investment.
> Also the market value of investments (stocks and bonds) is not as
> important to the retired as the income they generate.
>
And low interest rates make that return less.
>>...Seniors on a fixed
>>income have had to weather a terrible market, low interest rate for
>>bonds and higher medical costs.
>
> People on a "fixed income" have had relatively low inflation for 20
> years, and they are not much into the stock market--or else they would
> not be "fixed income".
When the market dumped it dumped for much of IRA's, Pention Funds, And
other investments.
>
> But yes, a booming economy helps those retirees with stocks and bonds.
>
Not always true. A booming economy didn't help pensions. It didn't help
costs, and it didn't help much of anything when you factor in the cost of
the bursting of the bubble.
>>...Also their grown kids haven't faired to well
>>these past years and many have paid their bills while they were out of
>>work or loaned them money for their grandkids college. I am a senior.
>>Believe me. Next time you see some old guys at the local eatery sit
>>and have a chat.
>
>
> Most of the retired that I see are when I go to the Ho Chunk casino.
> They seem to have enough money to play slots for hours. Some even
> play blackjack.
Do you think this is a representative sample of seniors?
I took a gamble years ago on a woman. Then took a gamble on raising kids.
Then took a gamble on retiring early and opening a business. That's about
the extent of my gambling. I was a test pilot fro 25 years and gambling
wasn't something I thought was smart at work or play.
>>
>>You know we used to have neighbors and neiborhoods where we all knew
>>the others problems and helped when we could. Now days it's not just
>>the politicians and media that's out of touch with the American
>>people. We are out of touch with each other.
>
> I agree with that. When we first moved in, we knew all of the
> neighbours. My wife's bridge group all lived within walking distance.
>
> Now I know only a few of those in the area (and still remember the
> houses by the names of their first owners most of whom moved out
> decades ago). Now my wife's bridge group lives all over the county.
>
>>...Really sad and somehow my generation
>>messed up this country and raised kids with so little concern for
>>those around them. Damn shame. The greatest generation raised the
>>worst generation. For the life of me I can not understand how we got
>>to the low point we have reached.
>
> Cheer up. The kids today are OK, just different. Purple hair and nose
> rings and.... Well maybe you have a point :-(
>
I have no worries about my life but I wish my grandkids could have lived
in a world better than the one I grew up in. It's not the case. Both my
kids have good educations from top tier colleges but go in and out of
work occasionally. If they didn't have a good education, I could see
where they would be in trouble in today's world.
Unless your one of the truely wealthy, education is the only way to enjoy
a somewhat decent lifestyle and that education is disappearing as an
option to the kids who by no fault of their own were born to poor
parents. If I were president for a day the first thing I'd do was make
public education extend through the first two years of college or trade
school and to four years or even higher for kids who choose a hard
science. I wouldn't mind a tax increase for that at all. But I do mind a
tax increase for Bunker nukes, corporate welfare, mistakes that lead to
wars, and rebuilding countries for folks that are shooting at our young
troops.
The current crop of business owners remind me of the farmers of old who
planted the same crop year after year after year and were surprised when
their final crop was a dust bowl. Todays farmers learned to rotate crops
and take care of their land. Todays businesses seem to somehow be unable
to relate the worker with the consumer and are consequently competeing
for a shrinking pie. The current administration's tired old trickle down
policy isn't working any better than it did under Reagan. When one primes
an engine you don't do it by first buying a Blaupunkt radio and a diamond
stick pin. The tax cuts should have gone to the middleclass and
lowerclass. But that they did it isn't the problem I have with this
crowd. It's that they did it knowing the effect.
Do you teach?
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>During the 1970’s and 80’s it seemed like everyone was worried about
>Japan taking over the world. They were smart and efficient, and were
>employing TQM (remember that?) and the ideas of William E. Demming.
>They had an "Industrial Policy". The USA was going to be falling
>behind them and eventually they would control the world economy
>and even buy up most of the valuable property in the USA: Rockeller
>Center and Pebble Beach, lots of hotels and our companies, etc.
>
>Then during the 1990’s everything changed. Japan fell into a decade
>long recession, sold off their US holding at a loss, the yen dropped
>to under a penny and the question was what happened to them and why.
>
>Georgists said it was because they directed their tax base away
>from land.
Which explanation at least has the advantage that it actually
happened.
>Supply Siders said it was because their taxes were too high.
Which explanation has the disadvantage that it didn't actually happen:
taxes were not high, they were low, especially the land tax; and taxes
that were higher than in competing countries, like the corporate tax
and top-rate personal income tax, had been just as high during the
boom years.
The only tax that increased significantly before the crash was the
consumption tax, which was introduced a year before the crash -- and
then, proving that there is no such thing as too much of a bad policy
when you are intent on shoveling money into landowners' pockets --
increased _twice_ after the crash, while the land tax was being
eliminated altogether.
>Conservatives said Japan was an example of failed Keynesianism.
>
>http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.7119/pub_detail.asp
Which explanation has the disadvantage that it doesn't explain why the
recession occurred, only why it continued.
>Paul Krugman offered the interesting idea that it was demographics:
>too many old people.
>
>http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/japan.html
Which explanation also has the disadvantage that it didn't happen:
Japan's birth rate -- its post-WW II demographic echo boom -- peaked
in 1973; so in fact, more young people entered Japan's workforce in
the 1990s than had done so in either the 70s or the 80s, both of which
were boom decades.
It is perhaps significant that among the possible explanations Krugman
enumerates in his article, the true one -- the shift of taxation off
of land and onto consumption, which I have identified numerous times
in this newsgroup -- is not mentioned. Does anyone know if Krugman
permits himself to know any of the economic facts about land?
>But for the last several years Japan has pulled out of its recession
>and is on the rebound again.
>
>Why?
You said it: rebound. Things can only go down for so long, and then
they go up. Even disaster areas like Cuba, North Korea and Zimbabwe
occasionally have years that are better than the previous ones.
>Do they tax land again?
Nope.
>Have they cut their tax rates?
Nope.
>Have
>they stopped trying to deficit-spend their way to prosperity?
Nope.
>Did they get younger?
Nope. Older. Japan's birth rate has been dropping for 30 years, is
now far below replacement level, and the proportion of elderly
continues to grow. As the women of Japan's echo boom move past their
fertile years over the next decades, Japan's birthrate looks set to
fall to lows never recorded anywhere in history, other than times of
war and famine.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
>ro...@telus.net wrote in news:40f5e307...@news.telus.net:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:58:55 -0000, Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>IMHO, it was age and benefits.
>>
>> It wasn't age or benefits. Seniors are still a small cohort in Japan,
>> and will be for another ten years. Benefits are sizable, but didn't
>> grow that much in the 80s or 90s. There is more flexibility in
>> Japanese benefit systems.
>
>Funny, I just saw an economist on CNN say that that is exactly what the
>problem is. The addition he made was a significant reduction in birth rate
>in Japan is also going to help increase the severity of the problem.
It _will_, but it hasn't _yet_. That is the point. Japan's echo boom
peaked in 1973, and the 90s saw more young people enter the workforce
than either the 70s or 80s. But the 90s was the recession, the 70s
and 80s were boom years.
-- Roy L
Charlie Thorne
There are several items of interest in Japan's fall in the 1990's.
Since WWII, Japan has depended on the U.S. The U.S. starting
drastically falling in the 70's due to excess military and failure of
heavy industry (steel fell from a world leader to unemployment higher
than in the 1930's and GM had their first losing year in the 60's.
The oil shock of '73 was the issue that pushed the U.S. over into the
red. In the 1980's, the U.S. recovered with the Reagan boom (that
unfortunately borrowed the deficit from Japan in exchange for opening
the auto market to Japan). The peak in the U.S. was illusionary and by
the 90's, the U.S. was no longer of any help to Japan. There is also a
fair amount of corruption in the Japanese banks (see Krugman's "The
Return of Depression Economics", that addresses all of the 90's
crashes in Asia). Japan is currently suffering from a Keynesian
"Liquidity Trap" just like the U.S. suffered in the 30's, with similar
results. Japan is still a wealthy and productive country, but is not
growing--there is still corruption in the banking industry.
The crash will occur again someplace as the U.S. looks for places to
borrow the Bush version of Reaganomics (see Krugman's recent book on
"The Great Unravelling" in which he shows what will happen when the
U.S. realizes that giving money borrowed from foreigners to wealthy
industrialists and getting nothing in return--in addition to fighting
useless wars, will cause a new problem in the U.S. (probably around
the time that Social Security crashes).
Charlie
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>There are several items of interest in Japan's fall in the 1990's.
Be sure not to mention or think about the actual cause of Japan's fall
in the 1990s: the shift of taxation away from land and onto economic
activity.
>Since WWII, Japan has depended on the U.S.
And still does. That has not changed.
>The U.S. starting
>drastically falling in the 70's due to excess military and failure of
>heavy industry (steel fell from a world leader to unemployment higher
>than in the 1930's and GM had their first losing year in the 60's.
>
>The oil shock of '73 was the issue that pushed the U.S. over into the
>red. In the 1980's, the U.S. recovered with the Reagan boom (that
>unfortunately borrowed the deficit from Japan in exchange for opening
>the auto market to Japan). The peak in the U.S. was illusionary and by
>the 90's, the U.S. was no longer of any help to Japan.
Garbage. The USA still had a huge balance of trade and payments
deficit with Japan.
>There is also a
>fair amount of corruption in the Japanese banks (see Krugman's "The
>Return of Depression Economics", that addresses all of the 90's
>crashes in Asia).
Krugman fails to address the singular fact that Taiwan, which alone
among the prosperous East Asian "tiger" economies did not shift its
tax burden off land and onto economic activity in the 90s, was also
alone among them in not suffering a crash in the 90s.
>Japan is currently suffering from a Keynesian
>"Liquidity Trap" just like the U.S. suffered in the 30's, with similar
>results.
Another similarity: increased taxation of economic activity and less
taxation of land in the previous decade.
>Japan is still a wealthy and productive country, but is not
>growing--there is still corruption in the banking industry.
There was just as much corruption throughout the boom years. You need
to think about explaining changes in terms of changes, not in terms of
what _didn't_ change.
-- Roy L
Johnny 5
news:Xns9527A412...@216.168.3.44:
> I took a gamble years ago on a woman.
Years ago the risk was worth the reward - today I actively try to get my
friends not to take this foolish gamble. Burn the bra bitch.
> Then took a gamble on raising
> kids.
Again years ago this had a good risk/reward. Today Brittney is not going
to do anything for you but create drama and problems in your life til
your dying breath with her crack habit.
> Then took a gamble on retiring early and opening a business.
Do that today and you will starve to death.
> That's about the extent of my gambling. I was a test pilot fro 25
> years and gambling wasn't something I thought was smart at work or
> play.
A test pilot, another failure today, I hear the airplane companies are
going out of business - less pilots I guess.
> Unless your one of the truely wealthy, education is the only way to
> enjoy a somewhat decent lifestyle and that education is disappearing
It's not the education that matters, its the PAPER - read this or watch
the video
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechgoodwillhunting.
html
The piece of paper is why one will be flipping burgers and the other will
be taking ski trips to colorado - they are both smart and educated.
I used to be the top in research triangle park, NC for networking, and
the certifications were requiring more of my productive time than I could
work to pay for them - but it's like the immigrants, you want in this
country - you got to PROVE you can add something, and if I wanted into
corporate profits as an employee, I had to have the certs and the papers
and the letters and the degrees and the associations and memberships.
THe failure with both systems is that in the CERTTIFICATION LADDER I was
being expected to learn and memorize MANY things that were not truly
needed for the productive work, it was wasting time I could have worked
in real problems and real solutions - the cert means little, the test
right before you get the job shows a lot more of where your knowledge is.
I know guys with certs that know nothing, and geeks who stayed on the net
and never had ANY schooling and are very productive individuals.
The mexicans coming here with no knowledge should be stopped, set up a
school over the border, teach them english, give them books and internet,
and then test them, if they past the test they enter america, if they
dont they can stay at the school in mexico until they do. To keep the
system honest, keep testing your employees and keep testing your
mexicans, if they get behind the people doing best on the continuous
testing needs to get awarded the better money and contracts and jobs.
> as an option to the kids who by no fault of their own were born to
> poor parents.
They can go to the library like the guy in good will hunting and get a
FREE education.
> If I were president for a day the first thing I'd do was
> make public education extend through the first two years of college or
Listen up LEFTIE, you CANNOT force thug fool who wants to spend 200
dollars on nikes and crack rock to LEARN, you can not make a HORSE DRINK,
quit wasting my countries resources on that futility. In asia you get a
test, after that test you go to trade school or formal higher education -
we should have that here, not EVERYONE deserves the same chance after
that, some want to work, some don't, dont piss resources away on lazy
people. I knew so many people in college that got FREE LOANS and all
they wanted to do was PARTAY!
> trade school and to four years or even higher for kids who choose a
> hard science. I wouldn't mind a tax increase for that at all.
Sure, tax it away leftie, we are gonna turn the crackhead into a GOOD
hard working benevolent self sacrificing individual.
But I do
> mind a tax increase for Bunker nukes, corporate welfare,
What you want to do is give welfare to the LAZY, lazy welfare, bumb
welfare, crack addict welfare, kids from a very young age can look out in
society and see who they want to be like, I wanted to be like captain
kirk, others like ludacris, in real life niether one of them get the
chicks - it took wesley snipes going into a crack house to get some
stinky hole.
mistakes that
> lead to wars, and rebuilding countries for folks that are shooting at
> our young troops.
We rebult Japan, they shot at our troops, the slant eyes are our buddies
now and send us lots of neat gadgets, expand your horizons.
> tax cuts should have gone to the middleclass and lowerclass. But that
Bill Cosby said it already, we gave the money to martin luther king jr's
blacks, they chose Nike Shoes instead of free books at the library, quit
pissing away my countries resources on your failed social experiment.
> they did it isn't the problem I have with this crowd. It's that they
> did it knowing the effect.
I know, I had a lazy bumb tell me she was hungry, she wanted me to go get
the food for her, I walked away and if she starved to death I think she
got her just reward, go take YOUR TIME and money and help that bumb, quit
asking me to do it leftie. I got better uses for my time and money.
Johnny 5
> There was just as much corruption throughout the boom years. You need
> to think about explaining changes in terms of changes, not in terms of
> what _didn't_ change.
>
> -- Roy L
Corruption of the worlds nations graphed to age structure from 0-14:
http://www.nationmaster.com/plot/edu_sch_enr_sec_net/peo_age_str_014
_yea/flag
Corruption of the worlds nations graphed to age structure from 15-64:
http://www.nationmaster.com/plot/gov_cor/peo_age_str_156_yea/flag
IBM where I used to work killed off the old people - basically sent them
into the gas chambers, and replaced the young people with CHEAP labor.
All other trends, tax, land, labor flow from PEOPLE - as the population
gets older we are FUCKED, the children were our FUTURE and bra burner
leftie fixed that shit - thanks Rosie!!
rick++
You have a real boom when you bring the whole country up
from a fraction of the US economic level to near US economic level.
But run in roadblocks ones you reach US level.
It might be subtle, culturally based things in the system,
e.g. feudal-like crony-capitalism in Japan. The US system is
far from perfect, but there are reform attempts during downturns.
Jim Blair
...
>
>I have no worries about my life but I wish my grandkids could have lived
>in a world better than the one I grew up in. It's not the case.
Hi,
I predict that young kids today will have a lot better life and more
opportunities than any previous generation. They will live longer, travel
more, know more about just about everything (that they care to Google),
etc.
>...Both my
>kids have good educations from top tier colleges but go in and out of
>work occasionally. If they didn't have a good education, I could see
>where they would be in trouble in today's world.
Yes, education will (I predict) become ever more important.
>
>Unless your one of the truely wealthy, education is the only way to enjoy
>a somewhat decent lifestyle and that education is disappearing as an
>option to the kids who by no fault of their own were born to poor
>parents.
Nonsense. Just about every kid in the US has the OPPORTUNITY for a "good
eduction" IF THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE IT. The problem is that many do not:
they spit in the face of that opportunity. But it is there for those who
want it.
I worked with a recent MS in chemistry from the UW. His family was from
China and I think he was born there. He went to grade and high schools in
an inner city school system where most kids dropped out, but he learned
enough to get a scholarship to the UW.
>...If I were president for a day the first thing I'd do was make
>public education extend through the first two years of college or trade
>school and to four years or even higher for kids who choose a hard
>science.
Kids can't be given an education: they can be given the opportunity to
earn one. I agree that money should not be the limitation, but I think
that today it is not.
Remenber that rich guy who went to a poor innercity Baltimore school
(mostly white then but black now) who returned to his old grade school to
give a pep-talk? At the last minute he decided he could not inspire them
with words alone, so he promised them that anyone who graduated from
highschool and qualified for a college, he would insure that they could
afford to attend the college.
Some 6 years later many in that class did graduate from highschool and get
accepted to a college. They were motivated by his promise and the idea
that they COULD do it.
But it turned out that his promise didn't cost him very much. All those
kids got full scholarships to college!
>....I wouldn't mind a tax increase for that at all.
I don't object to paying taxes to fund the education for those who want to
learn.
>....But I do mind a
>tax increase for Bunker nukes, corporate welfare, mistakes that lead to
>wars, ....
Me too.
>...and rebuilding countries for folks that are shooting at our young
>troops.
Only SOME shoot at our troops. Many want a free and democratic Iraq. At
any rate IF the middle-east can be transformed to be like Turkey, it would
be good for the world.
Too soon to tell if that will work out. And Bush will need to help
(and/or pressure) Sharon to pull out of Gaza and the West Bank and aid in
setting up an Arab Palestine.
>
>The current crop of business owners remind me of the farmers of old who
>planted the same crop year after year after year and were surprised when
>their final crop was a dust bowl. Todays farmers learned to rotate crops
>and take care of their land. Todays businesses seem to somehow be unable
>to relate the worker with the consumer and are consequently competeing
>for a shrinking pie.
The economy is changing so fast that new companies and new industries are
popping up everywhere, and old ones are dying off. I think the "pie" is
getting ever bigger, just always different.
>...The current administration's tired old trickle down
>policy isn't working any better than it did under Reagan.
Actually the US economy has been better than ever for the last 20 years.
Low inflation and low unemployment and just two shallow and short
recessions. That is good by historic standards.
>
>
>Do you teach?
I did for 15 years (chemisrty, physics, geology, astronomy. oceanography)
but not for the last 15 years.
Jim Blair
>ro...@telus.net wrote in news:40f5e307...@news.telus.net:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:58:55 -0000, Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>IMHO, it was age and benefits.
>>
>> It wasn't age or benefits. Seniors are still a small cohort in Japan,
>> and will be for another ten years. Benefits are sizable, but didn't
>> grow that much in the 80s or 90s. There is more flexibility in
>> Japanese benefit systems.
>>
>> -- Roy L
>>
>
>Funny, I just saw an economist on CNN say that that is exactly what the
>problem is. The addition he made was a significant reduction in birth rate
>in Japan is also going to help increase the severity of the problem.
Hi,
IF high benefits to an aging population were the cause of the decade long
recession of the 1990's, why has their economy been back on track for the
last several years? What changed? They didn't get younger. There is not
a massive immigration. Benefits were not drastically reduced.
Sounds to me like the recent boom discredits the "demographic theory" of
the depression of the 1990's.
>
>He said when asked if they saw problems the Japanese rep said they have a
>high savings rate and that the money used to buy our debt would be used to
>take care of their people instead of financing our debt. This would be a
>huge problem for the US economy. Just like the consumers live in debt so
>does America.
Maybe, but that is a prediction of the future not an explanation of the
past and present.
And I'll add that many posters on sci.econ seem to think that their
predictions about the future are as real as the records from the past.
The "fact" that US money will be worthless, or that the "bubble will
burst", or that the future will be worse than the present, etc.
Jim Blair
Hi,
It sounds reasonable that rapid growth would hit a barrier when the
economy approaches the level of the most developed. New technology and
ideas would then have to be "created" not simply copied or imported.
But while that might explain Japan in the 1990's, it would not explain the
current rebound. And China has made great strides, but it is still far
behind the US and the Industrial World.
Jim Blair
>
>There are several items of interest in Japan's fall in the 1990's.
>Since WWII, Japan has depended on the U.S. The U.S. starting
>drastically falling in the 70's due to excess military and failure of
>heavy industry (steel fell from a world leader to unemployment higher
>than in the 1930's and GM had their first losing year in the 60's.
>
>The oil shock of '73 was the issue that pushed the U.S. over into the
>red. In the 1980's, the U.S. recovered with the Reagan boom (that
>unfortunately borrowed the deficit from Japan in exchange for opening
>the auto market to Japan). The peak in the U.S. was illusionary and by
>the 90's, the U.S. was no longer of any help to Japan.
Hi,
But how was the Reagn Boom "illusionary" when it has continued to today,
with just two rather short and shallow recessions?
http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/er98q4.htm#expansions
and:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/reagan.txt
>...There is also a
>fair amount of corruption in the Japanese banks (see Krugman's "The
>Return of Depression Economics", that addresses all of the 90's
>crashes in Asia). Japan is currently suffering from a Keynesian
>"Liquidity Trap" just like the U.S. suffered in the 30's, with similar
>results. Japan is still a wealthy and productive country, but is not
>growing--there is still corruption in the banking industry.
But the Japanese has been back on track and growing for several years now.
Why?
>
>The crash will occur again someplace as the U.S. looks for places to
>borrow the Bush version of Reaganomics (see Krugman's recent book on
>"The Great Unravelling" in which he shows what will happen when the
>U.S. realizes that giving money borrowed from foreigners to wealthy
>industrialists and getting nothing in return--in addition to fighting
>useless wars, will cause a new problem in the U.S. (probably around
>the time that Social Security crashes).
I won't accept Krugman's predictions about what WILL happen in the future
as fact until they actually do happen. Until then they are as factual as
the massive famines of the 1970's or the current US population of 22.6
million.
"the Battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the1970's the world will
undergo famine
- hundred of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of
any crash
programs embarked upon now."----- Paul Erlich, "The Population Bomb", 1968
"...by 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop
to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop
to 22.6 million." ----- Paul Ehrlich, 1969 "Eco-Catastrophe"
Chief
> Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>
>>I have no worries about my life but I wish my grandkids could have
>>lived in a world better than the one I grew up in. It's not the case.
>
> Hi,
>
> I predict that young kids today will have a lot better life and more
> opportunities than any previous generation. They will live longer,
> travel more, know more about just about everything (that they care to
> Google), etc.
>
I don't see that happening. I see the ones with healthcare living longer.
That leaves out 40% of Americans. I see more opportunity for those born
to upper middleclass and above families - that leaves out 75% of
Americans. The rollback of environmental protections, labor safety laws,
and general labor laws will only insure 25% live better. Someone once
said that a society is judged by how well the least of its members do.
With the recent reports of stagnated wages, increase in low paying
service jobs and loss of manufacturing/tech jobs. I don't see a bright
future for todays children. I see a future simular to what's found in
Mexico today - a huge lower class and a small ruling upper class.
Globalism is good for every citizen on the planet - except the American
citizen that has to live through the decades of changes. The same
mistakes made in our education system - lower the standards to level the
playing field are the same mistakes we are making to 'globalize' America.
We are lowering our expectations for some distant fictional future with
little concern for the common good.
>>...Both my
>>kids have good educations from top tier colleges but go in and out of
>>work occasionally. If they didn't have a good education, I could see
>>where they would be in trouble in today's world.
>
> Yes, education will (I predict) become ever more important.
>
>>
>>Unless your one of the truely wealthy, education is the only way to
>>enjoy a somewhat decent lifestyle and that education is disappearing
>>as an option to the kids who by no fault of their own were born to
>>poor parents.
>
> Nonsense. Just about every kid in the US has the OPPORTUNITY for a
> "good eduction" IF THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE IT. The problem is that many
> do not: they spit in the face of that opportunity. But it is there
> for those who want it.
That like saying since you can lead a horse to water but can't make it
drink no horses will be led to water. I disagree completely.
> I worked with a recent MS in chemistry from the UW. His family was
> from China and I think he was born there. He went to grade and high
> schools in an inner city school system where most kids dropped out,
> but he learned enough to get a scholarship to the UW.
>
Apples and oranges - The Chinese family structure is completely different
than todays American family and the solution is not for our poor to
become Chinese in their ability to sleep twenty to a room, eat rice and
fish day in and day out and sacrifice every aspect of their lives for the
future of their children. That is not the American dream - it is the
reversal of every gain progressive liberals have made for the common
good. It is the American nightmare brought to us by folks that long for
the days of Mckinnely, privilege and greed.
>
>>...If I were president for a day the first thing I'd do was make
>>public education extend through the first two years of college or
>>trade school and to four years or even higher for kids who choose a
>>hard science.
>
> Kids can't be given an education: they can be given the opportunity to
> earn one. I agree that money should not be the limitation, but I think
> that today it is not.
Of Course they can be given an education. That's what the GI Bill after
WWII did successfully. That's what public education did until it's end
result was less than what was needed to obtain a decent job. When I
graduated from HS I could have had any number of entry level jobs - not
so today. One must have a skill or a degree to obtain what my generation
did with a HS education.
Bush's father gave an education to young george. Wealth doesn't mean a
kid is more deserving or more energized - just more able.
> Remenber that rich guy who went to a poor innercity Baltimore school
> (mostly white then but black now) who returned to his old grade school
> to give a pep-talk? At the last minute he decided he could not
> inspire them with words alone, so he promised them that anyone who
> graduated from highschool and qualified for a college, he would insure
> that they could afford to attend the college.
>
> Some 6 years later many in that class did graduate from highschool and
> get accepted to a college. They were motivated by his promise and the
> idea that they COULD do it.
>
> But it turned out that his promise didn't cost him very much. All
> those kids got full scholarships to college!
A good man - is that what the youth of today have to rely on - a wealthy
benefactor? The government could be and should be that benefactor as it
was for my generation. The participation of all of us to the benefit of
all of us. Not handled like a lottery where kids who happen to come
across the exception to the rule do well and the vast majority do not.
>>....I wouldn't mind a tax increase for that at all.
>
> I don't object to paying taxes to fund the education for those who
> want to learn.
>
>>....But I do mind a
>>tax increase for Bunker nukes, corporate welfare, mistakes that lead
>>to wars, ....
>
> Me too.
>
>>...and rebuilding countries for folks that are shooting at our young
>>troops.
>
> Only SOME shoot at our troops. Many want a free and democratic Iraq.
> At any rate IF the middle-east can be transformed to be like Turkey,
> it would be good for the world.
Just like the Vietnamese, During the day they waved American flags and at
night VC flags. It would be fairly stupid for an Iraqi to express open
dislike when occupied. All the polls that have been done have indicated
their view fairly well - thanks but leave.
>
> Too soon to tell if that will work out. And Bush will need to help
> (and/or pressure) Sharon to pull out of Gaza and the West Bank and aid
> in setting up an Arab Palestine.
>
I went there for 6 months and flew all over Iraq meeting locals and
buying gear for my units. The decent Iraqis left Iraq years ago. They
live in France, England and to a lesser degree the US. What is left in
Iraq today are friends of Saddam and people that had dealings with
Saddam. Years of killing ones enemies eventually leads to a country full
of friends. That is the case in Iraq. The founding fathers lived amoung
people hundreds of years more civilized than the majority of current
Iraqi's. Giving the Iraqi's democracy is like giving eyeliner to the
pygmies in the rain forrest. It will be accepted but after a few months
it will be totally unrecognizable. The factions will erupt and the
country will undergo a civil war as soon as we leave. With half the
population strict moslims supported by Iran, the other half moderate
muslims and Kurds it ought a humdinger when it starts. They still shoot
at each other as well at our troops.
>>
>>The current crop of business owners remind me of the farmers of old
>>who planted the same crop year after year after year and were
>>surprised when their final crop was a dust bowl. Todays farmers
>>learned to rotate crops and take care of their land. Todays businesses
>>seem to somehow be unable to relate the worker with the consumer and
>>are consequently competeing for a shrinking pie.
>
> The economy is changing so fast that new companies and new industries
> are popping up everywhere, and old ones are dying off. I think the
> "pie" is getting ever bigger, just always different.
>
Different is a strange word to hang ones hat on. Different can be good or
bad and good is not supported by the jobs data or the wage data.
>>...The current administration's tired old trickle down
>>policy isn't working any better than it did under Reagan.
>
> Actually the US economy has been better than ever for the last 20
> years. Low inflation and low unemployment and just two shallow and
> short recessions. That is good by historic standards.
>
The economy in 60's was better that the 70's and the 80's. It perked up
in the nineties and has dwindled since. In the early 70's the minimun
wage was hooked to one half of the average manufacture workers hourly
wages. Nixon change it to 'at the whim of the politicians' who's own
raises are automatic unless they vote to stop them. In the 60's a HS grad
could work for minimum wages and with a buddy share an apartment, buy a
car and start living the American dream. Today the minimum wage is a
joke. Families are now working two and three jobs to live where one job
was sufficient before. That is not progress by any stretch of the
imagination.
Unemployment numbers and the way they are figured has changed several
times and just like a 1200 sat test result today is not the equal of 1200
sat test result in the 60's the uemployment figures of 5.6 are more like
10%-12%. A resent study shows a 25% unemployment rate for black males.
That's bad whether your a liberal or a conservative. The current Bush
policy of not extending unemployment insurance is only to avoid seeing a
more realistic jobs picture. The articles I've read indicate that 170,000
to 240,000 jobs are needed each month to break even just because of new
workers being added to the work force. These increases we have seen are
barely keeping even and this month was below again. Supply side economics
has never worked to do anything other that shrink the middle and enrich
the upper. It's time to put that puppy to bed once and for all. Not once
has a raise in the minumum wage decreased the availability of jobs and
not once has enriching the rich benefitted the poor. The recent retail
sales data was a perfect picture of the outcome. The extremely small
luxuary goods sector grew while the large discount sector remained flat.
To think all the road workers, retail clerks and lower management folks
have started buying BMWs is fairly foolish. The facts don't support the
words of this administration. Four more years of the same may well bring
about a depression. In my lifetime this is the worst president, the worst
administration and the worst congress I have ever experienced. Just the
other day I saw something that I never expected to see. A government TV
Ad warning pregnant women to not eat fish because of high mercury
content. An entire food group judged to be bad for our unborn children.
Amazing, especially when one looks at the recent increases in the
allowable limits of mercury emissions. So instead of lowering the output
of mercury our government decided the best course was to just spend a few
million of TV ads.
Our TV's are inundated with get rich schemes, miracle cures for every
desease and ailment known to mankind, and even fountains of youth in a
pill. In my generation the fleecing of the public would not have been
allowed by the FDA or the government. Today it's common. In my time
punishment was reserved to a court of law. Today banks, video stores and
just about anybody selling anything on credit punish their customers with
grossly high late fees.
I read an article that said the Blockbusters primary source of income was
late fees. In my time they were allowed to recover the cost incurred but
not allowed to profit from anothers inabilty to pay on time.
The best defination I've heard for a 'gentleman' is one who is more
concerned for those about him than he is for himself.
There is a severe shortage of gentlemen in this country. That combined
with the surplanting of Christianity with a religion more akin to the
philosophy of Epicurus.
>>
>>Do you teach?
>
> I did for 15 years (chemisrty, physics, geology, astronomy.
> oceanography) but not for the last 15 years.
I retired from the military but start teaching at a community college
this fall.
>
>>>
>>> > ,,,,,,,
>>>>> _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
>>>>> (_)
>>>>> jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
>>>>> USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
>>>>> binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
>>>>> call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
>
>
>
I retired from the military and teach now.
Chief
> Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
>>ro...@telus.net wrote in news:40f5e307...@news.telus.net:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:58:55 -0000, Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>IMHO, it was age and benefits.
>>>
>>> It wasn't age or benefits. Seniors are still a small cohort in
>>> Japan, and will be for another ten years. Benefits are sizable, but
>>> didn't grow that much in the 80s or 90s. There is more flexibility
>>> in Japanese benefit systems.
>>>
>>> -- Roy L
>>>
>>
>>Funny, I just saw an economist on CNN say that that is exactly what
>>the problem is. The addition he made was a significant reduction in
>>birth rate in Japan is also going to help increase the severity of the
>>problem.
>
> Hi,
>
> IF high benefits to an aging population were the cause of the decade
> long recession of the 1990's, why has their economy been back on track
> for the last several years? What changed? They didn't get younger.
> There is not a massive immigration. Benefits were not drastically
> reduced.
From what I've heard from a buddy working in Japan the benefits have been
drastically reduced and the population of homeless old folks is for the
first time in years noticable.
They are not going through a boom. They are half way out of a hole. Kinda
like what we are experiencing.
When one digs a ten foot deep hole and tosses in five feet of dirt he
hasn't made a mountain.
>
> Sounds to me like the recent boom discredits the "demographic theory"
> of the depression of the 1990's.
>>
>>He said when asked if they saw problems the Japanese rep said they
>>have a high savings rate and that the money used to buy our debt would
>>be used to take care of their people instead of financing our debt.
>>This would be a huge problem for the US economy. Just like the
>>consumers live in debt so does America.
>
> Maybe, but that is a prediction of the future not an explanation of
> the past and present.
A mix I believe. It would be terrible to have our debt go unfinanced. I'd
imagine the govern would resort to printing more money.
>
> And I'll add that many posters on sci.econ seem to think that their
> predictions about the future are as real as the records from the past.
> The "fact" that US money will be worthless, or that the "bubble will
> burst", or that the future will be worse than the present, etc.
>
I don't know Jim, I'm not an economist or an ostrich - just an observer.
By the way, I enjoy your posts. It's nice to find a smart
moderate/conservative (a guess - not a statement) to chew the fat with.
Chief
4ax.com:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:26:40 -0000, Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
>
>>Globalism is good for every citizen on the planet
>
>
> Should you take this to alt.religion?
>
> ________
> Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
> like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
In my current view of globalism and it's effect on American citizens - Yes.
I will not mention the G word again unless I kneel and anoint myself with a
good olive oil. What did Ashcroft use? 3in1 oil or Quaker State 10w-40?
ro...@telus.net
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:58:57 +0000 (UTC), Jim Blair <s...@sig.com>
>wrote:
>
>>IF high benefits to an aging population were the cause of the decade long
>>recession of the 1990's, why has their economy been back on track for the
>>last several years? What changed? They didn't get younger. There is not
>>a massive immigration. Benefits were not drastically reduced.
>>
>>Sounds to me like the recent boom discredits the "demographic theory" of
>>the depression of the 1990's.
>
>Why? Are they forbidden from taking steps to address it?
No, but they haven't.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
>
>>...Both my
>>kids have good educations from top tier colleges but go in and out of
>>work occasionally. If they didn't have a good education, I could see
>>where they would be in trouble in today's world.
>
>Yes, education will (I predict) become ever more important.
Salesmanship will be even more important, because education is
becoming so common.
>>Unless your one of the truely wealthy, education is the only way to enjoy
>>a somewhat decent lifestyle and that education is disappearing as an
>>option to the kids who by no fault of their own were born to poor
>>parents.
>
>Nonsense. Just about every kid in the US has the OPPORTUNITY for a "good
>eduction" IF THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE IT. The problem is that many do not:
>they spit in the face of that opportunity. But it is there for those who
>want it.
True, but there are still far too many who are born unable to benefit
by it, whether through poor genes, fetal drug and alcohol exposure,
etc., or who become unable to benefit by it through poor nutrition,
emotionally destructive or intellectually impoverished home life, etc.
IMO, for most who ultimately don't benefit by educational
opportunities, it is already too late by the time they get to school.
>Remenber that rich guy who went to a poor innercity Baltimore school
>(mostly white then but black now) who returned to his old grade school to
>give a pep-talk? At the last minute he decided he could not inspire them
>with words alone, so he promised them that anyone who graduated from
>highschool and qualified for a college, he would insure that they could
>afford to attend the college.
>
>Some 6 years later many in that class did graduate from highschool and get
>accepted to a college. They were motivated by his promise and the idea
>that they COULD do it.
>
>But it turned out that his promise didn't cost him very much. All those
>kids got full scholarships to college!
That is an inspiring story, but it should not just be the
beneficiaries of private philanthropy who get such assistance.
>>....I wouldn't mind a tax increase for that at all.
>
>I don't object to paying taxes to fund the education for those who want to
>learn.
Nor I. I'd far rather pay more for public education that usually does
some good than for medicare that usually doesn't.
>>....But I do mind a
>>tax increase for Bunker nukes, corporate welfare, mistakes that lead to
>>wars, ....
>
>Me too.
We agree on a lot!
-- Roy L
Johnny 5
news:Xns952B9DD3...@216.168.3.44:
> Someone once said that a society is judged by how well the least of
> its members do. With the recent reports of stagnated wages, increase
My mexico boy nieghbor first came here a few years back, he lives in an
old singlewide rundown trailer, he works for 3 dollars an hour in the hot
sun hooking up cable - sometimes he does not get paid, I am sure he has
no medical or dental or education - however he makes enough money that he
can afford to go to the free library and learn, I am sure there are
programs where he could get grants or loans to the local community
college if he doesnt like the library - he did not want to do this, he
chose to buy a new ford van and he goes to the casino on the weekends.
Who do you blame it on when he falls off the ladder tomorrow hooking up
cable and breaks his leg and cant afford the medical bills?
> in low paying service jobs and loss of manufacturing/tech jobs. I
> don't see a bright future for todays children. I see a future simular
> to what's found in Mexico today - a huge lower class and a small
> ruling upper class.
I went to mexico last month, thier upper class in some places live better
than the upperclass here in Tampa. Thier lower class I thought would be
in rags and riding a donkey - but they had nice hilfiger shirts and nike
shoes and busses nicer than GREYHOUND - tv's and nice wide reclining
seats. When is the last time you went to mexico to see how poor pedro is
living on all the US dollars he is exporting back home?
> Globalism is good for every citizen on the planet - except the
> American citizen that has to live through the decades of changes. The
> same mistakes made in our education system - lower the standards to
> level the playing field are the same mistakes we are making to
> 'globalize' America. We are lowering our expectations for some distant
> fictional future with little concern for the common good.
The hope is that we can take the rest of the world up and not go down
ourselves, but that was a false hope, all my friends are working 2 or 3
jobs, they have no free time like I do, but then I dont have a wife, a
big house, a big new car, or buy 50 dollar dinners every weekend - so its
all relative.
> That like saying since you can lead a horse to water but can't make it
> drink no horses will be led to water. I disagree completely.
I gave the free books and libraries to martin luther kings blacks, some
choose to buy 200 dollar nikes and not walk over to the library, what
for? mexico boy chooses not to go there either - the casino is more fun,
library is for boring gringo with no life. The water is there, bill
cosby said they arent drinking, what more can society do for them?
> Apples and oranges - The Chinese family structure is completely
> different than todays American family
Right, the slant eye is taught from birth how important it is to do well
in school and job - but my mexico boy friend will be laughed at if he
goes to the library, so him and his drunk buddies go to the casino and
live it up, not like stupid slant eye that spend all night reading book.
and the solution is not for our
> poor to become Chinese in their ability to sleep twenty to a room, eat
> rice and fish day in and day out and sacrifice every aspect of their
> lives for the future of their children.
Many would disagree with you. The children are the future. My kids are
playing the nintendo games that their kids are making. My kids are
watching the tv's that thier kids are making. My kids are watching the
anime cartoons that thier kids are making.
> Of Course they can be given an education. That's what the GI Bill
> after WWII did successfully. That's what public education did until
> it's end result was less than what was needed to obtain a decent job.
> When I graduated from HS I could have had any number of entry level
> jobs - not so today. One must have a skill or a degree to obtain what
> my generation did with a HS education.
THe free jobs for idiots are not out there like they used to be, the
gaurantees are gone. Kids are gonna have to work hard and smart if they
want the free ride you had back in the day.
> A good man - is that what the youth of today have to rely on - a
> wealthy benefactor? The government could be and should be that
> benefactor as it was for my generation. The participation of all of us
> to the benefit of all of us. Not handled like a lottery where kids who
> happen to come across the exception to the rule do well and the vast
> majority do not.
I give mexico boy the book the millionaire next door, he has not read it
in 4 months, but he goes to the casino every weekend - what is the
problem? You talk about lottery's, that seems to be where he wants to
be.
> I went there for 6 months and flew all over Iraq meeting locals and
> buying gear for my units. The decent Iraqis left Iraq years ago. They
> live in France, England and to a lesser degree the US. What is left in
> Iraq today are friends of Saddam and people that had dealings with
> Saddam. Years of killing ones enemies eventually leads to a country
> full of friends. That is the case in Iraq. The founding fathers lived
> amoung people hundreds of years more civilized than the majority of
> current Iraqi's. Giving the Iraqi's democracy is like giving eyeliner
> to the pygmies in the rain forrest. It will be accepted but after a
> few months it will be totally unrecognizable. The factions will erupt
> and the country will undergo a civil war as soon as we leave. With
> half the population strict moslims supported by Iran, the other half
> moderate muslims and Kurds it ought a humdinger when it starts. They
> still shoot at each other as well at our troops.
Thats good though, if we let them get united and peaceful, they may kick
us out and then we have no more cheap oil.
> who's own raises are automatic unless they vote to stop them. In the
> 60's a HS grad could work for minimum wages and with a buddy share an
> apartment, buy a car and start living the American dream. Today the
> minimum wage is a joke. Families are now working two and three jobs to
> live where one job was sufficient before. That is not progress by any
> stretch of the imagination.
You are bringing absolutes and black and white to a multi colored
problem, my friends that work 2 and 3 jobs do it because they want a big
house, a big car, wife wants lots of shopping money and they want her
sex, me - I dont have a big house, a big new car, 50 dollar steak dinners
every weekend - I have lots of free time to read books in the boring
library eating my 2 dollar sandwich.
> more like 10%-12%. A resent study shows a 25% unemployment rate for
> black males. That's bad whether your a liberal or a conservative. The
The library is free, why do I have to PAY to teach them linux
programming, they can learn at thier own pace for FREE. Modern day
schools are INEFFICIENT, they try to shovel knowledge at a median rate
that hinders some - the dummies that cant learn it that fast and the
smarties that are learning too slow - let people take thier own time to
learn things, when mexico boy wants to leave the casino he has a library
with all the most recent information and free net access to get on
sci.econ and learn. You just want to give them busy work and free money
like they had in the 60's - those days are gone, no more free money for
useless busy work.
> current Bush policy of not extending unemployment insurance is only to
> avoid seeing a more realistic jobs picture. The articles I've read
> indicate that 170,000 to 240,000 jobs are needed each month to break
> even just because of new workers being added to the work force.
I dont want to work, I dont want to check in a clock everyday - I want to
hang out, look at the stars, and read the books - why do all you
economists get your panties in such a wad over JOB numbers - there are
lots of people that dont WANT jobs - and when they DID - it was just for
busy work so they could get wifey a big house and big car.
> that puppy to bed once and for all. Not once has a raise in the
> minumum wage decreased the availability of jobs and not once has
Minimum wage - ok I make 6.50 at the library stocking books, people are
all over this city trying to get me to sign a petition to raise it to 10.
I just don't need it, 6.50 is more than I need for the lifestyle I am
happy with. ANything that fucks with the free market usually is bad,
dont forget this. Minimum wages fuck with the free market, when pedro
gets tired of working for 3 dollars and needs more money for the casino -
he will work another job instead of just the 1 he works now. Why give
him more money for the same work he does now that he is just going to
piss away at the casino?
> goods sector grew while the large discount sector remained flat. To
> think all the road workers, retail clerks and lower management folks
> have started buying BMWs is fairly foolish.
Pedro didn't get a BMW, but he did get a BRAND NEW FORD ECONOLINE VAN,
and him and pedro jr and a few others take it to the seminole hard rock
casino practically every weekend.
> punishment was reserved to a court of law. Today banks, video stores
> and just about anybody selling anything on credit punish their
> customers with grossly high late fees.
Dont pay them.
> I read an article that said the Blockbusters primary source of income
> was late fees. In my time they were allowed to recover the cost
> incurred but not allowed to profit from anothers inabilty to pay on
> time.
They just shut down the Payday lenders in Ga, but there were a lot of
people that NEEDED that service because they cant get credit anywhere
else, the world is not black and white, the baby and the bathwater are
seperate - why throw out both?
> The best defination I've heard for a 'gentleman' is one who is more
> concerned for those about him than he is for himself.
I was concerned I was going to have to pay pedros medical bills with my
taxes, so I gave him the book the millionaire next door, he chooses to go
to the casino and not read it ??
> There is a severe shortage of gentlemen in this country. That combined
Come and help Pedro , tell him to read the book, I can't seem to get it
across to him that the library is not such a bad place - but I guess
next to a 400 million dollar casino it just doesnt look as fun.
> I retired from the military but start teaching at a community college
> this fall.
Talk to your employers about the inefficiencies of current colleges, how
it is better for people to sign on to a terminal and download lesson
plans and learn at thier own pace instead of being force fed - but then
you would lose a job and you aren't gonna do that are you? :-(
>
> I retired from the military and teach now.
My dad retired from the military and he help setup some programs to teach
distance learning - why pay you when I can get the university of phoenix
online at my own pace? Why pay them when I can go to the library for
even cheaper? Why go to the library when I can sit on the net?
The net obsoleted your function to society, you are still holding on to
those old models and it is WASTEFUL.
Johnny 5
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:26:40 -0000, Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
>
>>Globalism is good for every citizen on the planet
>
>
> Should you take this to alt.religion?
You are right Chief, we are fracturing this group, I have to take some
blame myself, it's time to stop responding to all this off topic posting
and get back on topic, good old fashioned supply and demand.
Jim Blair
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:58:57 +0000 (UTC), Jim Blair <s...@sig.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>Sounds to me like the recent boom discredits the "demographic theory" of
>>the depression of the 1990's.
retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>Why? Are they forbidden from taking steps to address it?
>
Hi,
But what steps have they taken?
Jim Blair
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:42:36 +0000 (UTC), Jim Blair <s...@sig.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>...Both my
>>>kids have good educations from top tier colleges but go in and out of
>>>work occasionally. If they didn't have a good education, I could see
>>>where they would be in trouble in today's world.
>>
>>Yes, education will (I predict) become ever more important.
>
>Salesmanship will be even more important, because education is
>becoming so common.
Hi,
But with this difference: most people can become educated, and can learn
some skills. But relatively few can good salesmen, and they are likely
more born than trained.
>
>>>Unless your one of the truely wealthy, education is the only way to enjoy
>>>a somewhat decent lifestyle and that education is disappearing as an
>>>option to the kids who by no fault of their own were born to poor
>>>parents.
>>
>>Nonsense. Just about every kid in the US has the OPPORTUNITY for a "good
>>eduction" IF THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE IT. The problem is that many do not:
>>they spit in the face of that opportunity. But it is there for those who
>>want it.
>
>True, but there are still far too many who are born unable to benefit
>by it, whether through poor genes, fetal drug and alcohol exposure,
>etc., or who become unable to benefit by it through poor nutrition,
>emotionally destructive or intellectually impoverished home life, etc.
>IMO, for most who ultimately don't benefit by educational
>opportunities, it is already too late by the time they get to school.
Sad to say, you may be correct :-(
>
>>Remenber that rich guy who went to a poor innercity Baltimore school
>>(mostly white then but black now) who returned to his old grade school to
>>give a pep-talk? At the last minute he decided he could not inspire them
>>with words alone, so he promised them that anyone who graduated from
>>highschool and qualified for a college, he would insure that they could
>>afford to attend the college.
>>
>>Some 6 years later many in that class did graduate from highschool and get
>>accepted to a college. They were motivated by his promise and the idea
>>that they COULD do it.
>>
>>But it turned out that his promise didn't cost him very much. All those
>>kids got full scholarships to college!
>
>That is an inspiring story, but it should not just be the
>beneficiaries of private philanthropy who get such assistance.
This was a very interesting story, and it looks like different people
learn different (even opposite) things from it. Was it really "private
philanthropy" if it didn't actually cost him much?
I see in the story that what is needed to improve education in slums and
inner-cities is not money but a change in the attitude of the students.
The fact that the students recognized that they were being given a special
opportunity not normally available, likely played a large role.
But if that were available to *everyone* (like high school is now) would
it then be taken for granted and not be appreciated (like high school is
now)?
How can we make education free and available to all, and still make each
student feel that THEY are lucky to be getting a special opportunity?
Johnny 5
sides take very good opposing viewpoints on - IE:
For globalism:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUBOPTIM.html
Another, more dramatic implication of the problem of suboptimization is
what Garrett Hardin has called the "tragedy of the commons". The example
is simple: imagine a group of shepherds who let their animals graze on a
common pasture. Each animal that is added will bring additional profits
to its shepherd. However, it will also diminish the overall profits of
the group, since the grass eaten by that animal will no longer be
available to the other animals. Yet, the loss of profit for the owner
because of reduced grass will always be smaller than the gain because of
an additional animal. Thus, for each individual shepherd, the optimal
decision is to increase his herd. For the system consisting of all
shepherds together, however, this strategy will result in an overgrazing
of the pasture and the eventual exhaustion of the common resource.
Against Globalism:
http://www.hoyt.org/monograph1.pdf
The plurality concept is as value-laden as is the perspective of the
system. The capsule summary is that Rousseau had it right when he saw a
common set of arrangements as a social contract. The problem was an
absolute set for all on a scale that did not allow for societal
differences. Dealing with differences is a major issue, whether it is
dealing with terrorists or the investors who have the irrational
exuberance that drives our security markets to fiascos. The title,
Improving Decisions: Toward a New Age of Enlightenment reflects an effort
to include plurality in an integration of emotion with reason in better
understanding the system and improving decisions. In the words of my
friend and colleague at the Hoyt Group, Ron Donohue, responding to a
request for comment on the work at an early stage, “I believe the main
message of the work is that true advancement comes from taking a holistic
view of issues, moving beyond the traditional boundaries of knowledge in
one's subject area and considering all fields as potential repositories
of knowledge. Keeping an open mind and an inquisitive spirit is the key.
Traditional methods become shackles that restrict freedom of movement and
inhibit process.” This Prologue should help the reader to grasp what is
intended. The “Preface” tells more about the work.
For me personally, I sure don't want to run out of WATER or other
valuable resources because we overpopulate and don't have globalism, but
I sure am damn tired of all the laws I am expected to obey and follow to
appease all 6 billion people and growing, it makes me mad and pisses me
off. Global population CONTROL, local resource control - that would seem
to be a good compromise. Then too many people won't be starving and I
won't have to remember laws made for someone with completely different
culutre and values.
> I just reacted to a hot button issue for me (the faith based
> globalists.) Please keep posting this in alt.politics.economics. I'm
> actually finding it a refreshing change.
>
> ________
> Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
> like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
>
--
Chief
4ax.com:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:43:04 GMT, Johnny 5 <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>retro...@comcast.net wrote in news:5kbof0h4p2rlvq0vl9upemq85mds2q9abe@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:26:40 -0000, Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Globalism is good for every citizen on the planet
>>>
>>>
>>> Should you take this to alt.religion?
>>
>>You are right Chief, we are fracturing this group, I have to take some
>>blame myself, it's time to stop responding to all this off topic posting
>>and get back on topic, good old fashioned supply and demand.
>
>
> I owe Chief an apology on that one. The post was actually a thoughtful
> and nice one. his remark I learned on reading farther was satirical.
>
> I just reacted to a hot button issue for me (the faith based
> globalists.) Please keep posting this in alt.politics.economics. I'm
> actually finding it a refreshing change.
>
> ________
> Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
> like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.
>
Damn I like Liberals. Fine folks. Thanks for reminding of that fact.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:42:36 +0000 (UTC), Jim Blair <s...@sig.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>That is an inspiring story, but it should not just be the
>>beneficiaries of private philanthropy who get such assistance.
>
>This was a very interesting story, and it looks like different people
>learn different (even opposite) things from it. Was it really "private
>philanthropy" if it didn't actually cost him much?
Of course it was. For most people, that "not much" is likely more
than they have.
>I see in the story that what is needed to improve education in slums and
>inner-cities is not money but a change in the attitude of the students.
Yes. Education must be valued by the students to be effective, even
if it is not possible for most people to value it for its own sake.
>The fact that the students recognized that they were being given a special
>opportunity not normally available, likely played a large role.
That may be true. "Exclusivity" in general is a motivator.
>But if that were available to *everyone* (like high school is now) would
>it then be taken for granted and not be appreciated (like high school is
>now)?
IMO when high school made a real difference in earning power, it was
more valued by students than it is now. Part of that is that high
school has been so dumbed down that it is no longer valued by
employers.
>How can we make education free and available to all, and still make each
>student feel that THEY are lucky to be getting a special opportunity?
Good question, but there may be other angles that are worth exploring.
For example, in Confucian cultures, advancing one's own education is
not valued so much as a special opportunity as a responsibility to
one's community and especially one's family. Maybe in a society so
race-conscious as the USA, it could work to spin failure to get as
much education as possible (or to deprive one's children of
intellectual stimulation, expose one's fetus to drugs or alcohol,
etc.) as a betrayal of one's "people."
-- Roy L
Jim Blair
>Jim Blair <s...@sig.com> wrote in news:cdgq5c$4vl$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu:
>
>> Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>
>>>I have no worries about my life but I wish my grandkids could have
>>>lived in a world better than the one I grew up in. It's not the case.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I predict that young kids today will have a lot better life and more
>> opportunities than any previous generation. They will live longer,
>> travel more, know more about just about everything (that they care to
>> Google), etc.
>>
>
>I don't see that happening. I see the ones with healthcare living longer.
>That leaves out 40% of Americans. I see more opportunity for those born
>to upper middleclass and above families - that leaves out 75% of
>Americans.
Hi,
Average life expectancy keep rising, as it has for the last 100 years (or
more). And that "average" includes those who die young.
>...The rollback of environmental protections, labor safety laws,
>and general labor laws will only insure 25% live better.
Real (ie inflation corrected) family incomes reached their all time high
in 2000 for all 5 income quintiles, not just for the "rich".
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
Table F-3.
>
>Globalism is good for every citizen on the planet - except the American
>citizen that has to live through the decades of changes.
Some US workers lose when jobs move to India or China. But workers there
benefit. I say better the jobs go there than that they move here for
those jobs.
>...The same
>mistakes made in our education system - lower the standards to level the
>playing field are the same mistakes we are making to 'globalize' America.
>We are lowering our expectations for some distant fictional future with
>little concern for the common good.
I think the fact that US student know they must compete with those in
Korea and China and India motivates them. (at least it motivates some of
them).
>
>
>>>...Both my
>>>kids have good educations from top tier colleges but go in and out of
>>>work occasionally. If they didn't have a good education, I could see
>>>where they would be in trouble in today's world.
>>
>> Yes, education will (I predict) become ever more important.
>>
>>>
>>>Unless your one of the truely wealthy, education is the only way to
>>>enjoy a somewhat decent lifestyle and that education is disappearing
>>>as an option to the kids who by no fault of their own were born to
>>>poor parents.
>
>
>>
>> Nonsense. Just about every kid in the US has the OPPORTUNITY for a
>> "good eduction" IF THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE IT. The problem is that many
>> do not: they spit in the face of that opportunity. But it is there
>> for those who want it.
>
>That like saying since you can lead a horse to water but can't make it
>drink no horses will be led to water. I disagree completely.
You can send a kid to school, but you can't make him think.
>
>> I worked with a recent MS in chemistry from the UW. His family was
>> from China and I think he was born there. He went to grade and high
>> schools in an inner city school system where most kids dropped out,
>> but he learned enough to get a scholarship to the UW.
>>
>
>Apples and oranges -
No students and students. Those who want to learn and those who don't.
>...The Chinese family structure is completely different
>than todays American family ...
Yes. And that is the problem.
>...and the solution is not for our poor to
>become Chinese in their ability to sleep twenty to a room, eat rice and
>fish day in and day out and sacrifice every aspect of their lives for the
>future of their children.
Actually it WAS the desire of families to work hard and to sacrifice for
the future of their children that made the US great. And if/when we lose
that, we will fall behind other countries (like China and India) that
still have it.
>>>...If I were president for a day the first thing I'd do was make
>>>public education extend through the first two years of college or
>>>trade school and to four years or even higher for kids who choose a
>>>hard science.
>>
>> Kids can't be given an education: they can be given the opportunity to
>> earn one. I agree that money should not be the limitation, but I think
>> that today it is not.
>
>Of Course they can be given an education.
They can be sent to school. But that is not the same thing.
>...That's what the GI Bill after
>WWII did successfully.
Before WW II, going to a college was limited to the children of the
wealthy few. But many more WANTED an education, and the GI bill gave them
the opportunity. That plus the increase in (mostly state) universities.
>...That's what public education did until it's end
>result was less than what was needed to obtain a decent job. When I
>graduated from HS I could have had any number of entry level jobs - not
>so today. One must have a skill or a degree to obtain what my generation
>did with a HS education.
And in the centuries before that, if you could read and write you could
get a good job. Yes, as Mason Clark said, today it takes 2 years of
college to get a high school education.
>
>Bush's father gave an education to young george.
He sent Dubwa to Yale, but did he get an education? Or just a degree?
>...Wealth doesn't mean a
>kid is more deserving or more energized - just more able.
>
>> Remenber that rich guy who went to a poor innercity Baltimore school
>> (mostly white then but black now) who returned to his old grade school
>> to give a pep-talk? At the last minute he decided he could not
>> inspire them with words alone, so he promised them that anyone who
>> graduated from highschool and qualified for a college, he would insure
>> that they could afford to attend the college.
>>
>> Some 6 years later many in that class did graduate from highschool and
>> get accepted to a college. They were motivated by his promise and the
>> idea that they COULD do it.
>>
>> But it turned out that his promise didn't cost him very much. All
>> those kids got full scholarships to college!
>
>A good man - is that what the youth of today have to rely on - a wealthy
>benefactor? The government could be and should be that benefactor as it
>was for my generation. The participation of all of us to the benefit of
>all of us. Not handled like a lottery where kids who happen to come
>across the exception to the rule do well and the vast majority do not.
Note that he didn't actually give them money. He just made them appreciate
an opportunity that they already had.
> I went there for 6 months and flew all over Iraq meeting locals and
>buying gear for my units. The decent Iraqis left Iraq years ago. They
>live in France, England and to a lesser degree the US. What is left in
>Iraq today are friends of Saddam and people that had dealings with
>Saddam. Years of killing ones enemies eventually leads to a country full
>of friends. That is the case in Iraq. The founding fathers lived amoung
>people hundreds of years more civilized than the majority of current
>Iraqi's. Giving the Iraqi's democracy is like giving eyeliner to the
>pygmies in the rain forrest. It will be accepted but after a few months
>it will be totally unrecognizable. The factions will erupt and the
>country will undergo a civil war as soon as we leave. With half the
>population strict moslims supported by Iran, the other half moderate
>muslims and Kurds it ought a humdinger when it starts. They still shoot
>at each other as well at our troops.
It is likely that the Kurds in the north will appreciate our efforts and
use the opportunity. And to a lesser extent, the Shiites in the south.
The Sunni center may well be left with the sand and the terrorists, since
the oil is in the north and south.
>
>>>...The current administration's tired old trickle down
>>>policy isn't working any better than it did under Reagan.
>>
>> Actually the US economy has been better than ever for the last 20
>> years. Low inflation and low unemployment and just two shallow and
>> short recessions. That is good by historic standards.
>>
>The economy in 60's was better that the 70's and the 80's. It perked up
>in the nineties and has dwindled since. In the early 70's the minimun
>wage was hooked to one half of the average manufacture workers hourly
>wages. Nixon change it to 'at the whim of the politicians' who's own
>raises are automatic unless they vote to stop them. In the 60's a HS grad
>could work for minimum wages and with a buddy share an apartment, buy a
>car and start living the American dream. Today the minimum wage is a
>joke. Families are now working two and three jobs to live where one job
>was sufficient before. That is not progress by any stretch of the
>imagination.
The federal minimum wage is not the measure of much of anything. The
average income of families is. And that has increased since the 1960's.
>
>Unemployment numbers and the way they are figured has changed several
>times and just like a 1200 sat test result today is not the equal of 1200
>sat test result in the 60's the uemployment figures of 5.6 are more like
>10%-12%.
??? An even larger fraction of the population is now in the workforce
than was in the 1960's
>..A resent study shows a 25% unemployment rate for black males.
And what was that figure in 1960?
>That's bad whether your a liberal or a conservative. The current Bush
>policy of not extending unemployment insurance is only to avoid seeing a
>more realistic jobs picture. The articles I've read indicate that 170,000
>to 240,000 jobs are needed each month to break even ...
Break even with the 1.6 million immigrants each year? I hear Kerry wants
to create 10 million new jobs for those 8 million Americans he say want a
job. So are we to assume the other 2 million jobs are for the immigrants
that will come for them?
I predict that by November the economy will be a plus for Bush. Kerry
should push stem cell research as his difference with Bush.
>.... Supply side economics
>has never worked to do anything other that shrink the middle and enrich
>the upper.
The US has been operating in the Reagan Supply Side for the last 20 years,
and we have done OK. Both as compared to Europe and Japan, and as compared
to the past. Remember there were 2 recessions during the 1960's.
And what do you mean "shrink the middle"? How do you define "middle"?
(I say lots of "middle income" people have moved up to "upper income"
during the last 20 years.)
>...It's time to put that puppy to bed once and for all. Not once
>has a raise in the minumum wage decreased the availability of jobs
Hey lets make it $20 per hour since we KNOW that this cannot possibly cost
any jobs.
>...and
>not once has enriching the rich benefitted the poor.
When poor people become rich, is that enriching the rich?
>....The recent retail
>sales data was a perfect picture of the outcome. The extremely small
>luxuary goods sector grew while the large discount sector remained flat.
>To think all the road workers, retail clerks and lower management folks
>have started buying BMWs is fairly foolish. The facts don't support the
>words of this administration. Four more years of the same may well bring
>about a depression. In my lifetime this is the worst president, the worst
>administration and the worst congress I have ever experienced.
I can remember when Nixon was the worst president ever. He was going to
cancel the 1972 (or was that the 1976?) election and rule as dictator. And
this was a certainty, as my Leftish friends KNEW from inside information.
>...Just the
>other day I saw something that I never expected to see. A government TV
>Ad warning pregnant women to not eat fish because of high mercury
>content. An entire food group judged to be bad for our unborn children.
>Amazing, especially when one looks at the recent increases in the
>allowable limits of mercury emissions. So instead of lowering the output
>of mercury our government decided the best course was to just spend a few
>million of TV ads.
??? Mercury has been in fish for decades. Only now they warn people about
it. Is that BAD?
If you want to reduce mercury emissions (as well as CO2), support shutting
down coal power plants. And nuclear is the only technology that is ready
to replace them now.
>
>Our TV's are inundated with get rich schemes, miracle cures for every
>desease and ailment known to mankind, and even fountains of youth in a
>pill. In my generation the fleecing of the public would not have been
>allowed by the FDA or the government. Today it's common. In my time
>punishment was reserved to a court of law. Today banks, video stores and
>just about anybody selling anything on credit punish their customers with
>grossly high late fees.
>
>I read an article that said the Blockbusters primary source of income was
>late fees. In my time they were allowed to recover the cost incurred but
>not allowed to profit from anothers inabilty to pay on time.
Er, a late fee is not because someone could not PAY on time. It is because
they didn't return the item on time. I say that means that money is less
important to them than time.
I also see people buying bottled water for $1.75 a pint, when standing
beside a drinking fountain (and Madison city water is the best there is,
at least as good as anything in a bottle).
I say this means those people have more dollars than sense.
>
>There is a severe shortage of gentlemen in this country.
There may be just the two of us ;-)
>>>
>>>Do you teach?
>>
>> I did for 15 years (chemisrty, physics, geology, astronomy.
>> oceanography) but not for the last 15 years.
>
>I retired from the military but start teaching at a community college
>this fall.
Good for you. I hope you have students that are there because they want to
learn. Will you be teaching them to field strip an AK 47? (just kidding).
Johnny 5
>>Globalism is good for every citizen on the planet - except the
>>American citizen that has to live through the decades of changes.
>
> Some US workers lose when jobs move to India or China. But workers
> there benefit. I say better the jobs go there than that they move
> here for those jobs.
I am have intimately experienced many cultures, I am very accepting of
indians and chinese, and mexicans, but always usually the aristocrats of
each culture, the poor mexicans coming up here with no education or
training are hard for me to bond with. I would rather they stay home in
mexico and take the jobs or learn good american english and and our ways
before they come here, current immigration policy just needs to be
enforced better.
>>That like saying since you can lead a horse to water but can't make it
>>drink no horses will be led to water. I disagree completely.
>
> You can send a kid to school, but you can't make him think.
I wish more lefties understood this and quit wasting mine and your tax
dollars on a hopeless cause.
> Actually it WAS the desire of families to work hard and to sacrifice
> for the future of their children that made the US great. And if/when
> we lose that, we will fall behind other countries (like China and
> India) that still have it.
We lost it, right about the time the bra got burned it was no longer for
husband, family, or children, but for ME ME ME. Once a 12 year old has
done in her short life what took you 40 years to experience, her need to
ACHIEVE is seriously reduced, once they have hit crack rock at 12, they
have no more need to do anything else the rest of thier life.
>>Bush's father gave an education to young george.
>
> He sent Dubwa to Yale, but did he get an education? Or just a degree?
THe guy that took the GI bill in the past, did he get an education or
just a degree? The GI BILL is not the answer, sending more kids to
school is not the answer, letting people learn at thier own pace
individually to contribute how they want too is more efficient.
> Note that he didn't actually give them money. He just made them
> appreciate an opportunity that they already had.
The progress paradox comes into affect, people only want SO MUCH FREEDOM
- beyond that too many choices complicate thier lives. When I was young,
you didn't have PC, Internet, HDTV, DVD, Cellphone, 500 restaurant
choices, 3 major shopping malls, 24 hour walmart - lets be honest,
CONSUMER choices and freedoms today occupy so much time why does little
princess really NEED to learn anything - its all been provided to her on
a silver platter. Having kids would rob her FREE TIME to enjoy all these
luxuries society has created for her, NO KIDS will be born in that
system.
> I can remember when Nixon was the worst president ever. He was going
> to cancel the 1972 (or was that the 1976?) election and rule as
> dictator. And this was a certainty, as my Leftish friends KNEW from
> inside information.
BWAHAHA! Damn lefties always got the best CIA info!
> If you want to reduce mercury emissions (as well as CO2), support
> shutting down coal power plants. And nuclear is the only technology
> that is ready to replace them now.
Right, time to enter the nuclear age in style.
> I also see people buying bottled water for $1.75 a pint, when standing
> beside a drinking fountain (and Madison city water is the best there
> is, at least as good as anything in a bottle).
>
> I say this means those people have more dollars than sense.
Absolutely, it is more trendy to have that PERSONALIZED bottle than a
communal water fountain, one is the BRA BURNERS liberation and
independance concept carried to extreme - damn stingy bitches. Wouldn't
piss on you to put out the fire. Bitches are just taught to be stingy
these days and NOT SHARE.
> Good for you. I hope you have students that are there because they
> want to learn. Will you be teaching them to field strip an AK 47?
> (just kidding).
The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school. -
George Bernard Shaw
The Trucker
> retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:58:57 +0000 (UTC), Jim Blair <s...@sig.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Sounds to me like the recent boom discredits the "demographic theory" of
>>>the depression of the 1990's.
>
> retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>Why? Are they forbidden from taking steps to address it?
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> But what steps have they taken?
>
What if they didn't take ANY steps at all. What if they just waited
while the Republicans continued to destroy the American economy and
simply watched as theirs IMPROVED by comparison?
What if the economic boom that was experience in the USA while the
Republicans were not in total control made Japan look somewhat
anemic in the larger world and now as the Republicans continue
to construct their sharply pointed pyramid of wealth and power
the opposite is the case?
Republicanism maximizes RENT and minimizes WAGES.
That is, of course, the opposite of what Smith says political economy
is all about:
Of Systems Of Political Economy
Book IV , Wealth Of Nations -- Adam Smith
"Political economy, considered as a branch of the science of statesman or
legislator, proposes two distinct objects: first, to provide a plentiful
revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to
provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and secondly, to
supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public
services. It proposes to enrich both the people and the sovereign."
And since "the sovereign" here in the USA is "the people" then this
remark by Smith is not to be interpreted as to enrich the wealthy
Republicans at the expense of the common people. Wealth has two
dimensions: One is the capacity to forgo labor and the other is
the capacity to command labor. The first is not zero sum, but the
second is. The first is enhanced by real capital development and
the last is enhanced by force and by the suppression of technology
Interest is the return to the first and rent is the return to the
second.
--
http://GreaterVoice.org (a work in progress)
Chief
> Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
>>Jim Blair <s...@sig.com> wrote in news:cdgq5c$4vl$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu:
>>
>>> Chief <Ch...@Home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>I have no worries about my life but I wish my grandkids could have
>>>>lived in a world better than the one I grew up in. It's not the
>>>>case.
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I predict that young kids today will have a lot better life and more
>>> opportunities than any previous generation. They will live longer,
>>> travel more, know more about just about everything (that they care
>>> to Google), etc.
>>>
>>
>>I don't see that happening. I see the ones with healthcare living
>>longer. That leaves out 40% of Americans. I see more opportunity for
>>those born to upper middleclass and above families - that leaves out
>>75% of Americans.
>
> Hi,
>
> Average life expectancy keep rising, as it has for the last 100 years
> (or more). And that "average" includes those who die young.
>
Averages are deceptive numbers. You know that. this country while being
the wealthest by far is fairly low among industrial nations. 40% of
americans without health care is a condemnation of the benevolence of
corporate America. Companies like Walmart and McDonalds consistantly
report record profits the workers consistantly don't share in those
profits. Those companies do not have many jobs that offer any benefits.
Wage stagnation has been a fact throughout this unrecovering recovery.
>
>>...The rollback of environmental protections, labor safety laws,
>>and general labor laws will only insure 25% live better.
>
> Real (ie inflation corrected) family incomes reached their all time
> high in 2000 for all 5 income quintiles, not just for the "rich".
Family incomes - another deceptive number. When today households
routinely have two and sometimes three jobs to compare it fairly to the
single worker families of the 60's one would have to double the income of
the single worker family - wonder how it would compare then. Not only
that but when both parents work the expenses do not just double, the tax
rate is worse, the childcare expenses are high, transportation costs and
more eat a goodly portion of one income. Come on Jim, you can not
honestly believe in these arguements your using.
>
> http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
>
> Table F-3.
>
>>
>>Globalism is good for every citizen on the planet - except the
>>American citizen that has to live through the decades of changes.
>
> Some US workers lose when jobs move to India or China. But workers
> there benefit. I say better the jobs go there than that they move
> here for those jobs.
>
I say we fill our grad schools again with the bright shiny faces of
American kids. You know as well as I do that the percentage of Americans
kids doing grad work in the hard sciences have been declining for years.
>>...The same
>>mistakes made in our education system - lower the standards to level
>>the playing field are the same mistakes we are making to 'globalize'
>>America. We are lowering our expectations for some distant fictional
>>future with little concern for the common good.
>
> I think the fact that US student know they must compete with those in
> Korea and China and India motivates them. (at least it motivates some
> of them).
>
They can't compete without a stable family life and an even playing
field. The stable family has disappeared at the same rate as the increase
of dual worker families and single parent familes.
>>
>>
>>>>...Both my
>>>>kids have good educations from top tier colleges but go in and out
>>>>of work occasionally. If they didn't have a good education, I could
>>>>see where they would be in trouble in today's world.
>>>
>>> Yes, education will (I predict) become ever more important.
>>>
It will become less available if the current crop of republicans get
their way.
>>>>Unless your one of the truely wealthy, education is the only way to
>>>>enjoy a somewhat decent lifestyle and that education is disappearing
>>>>as an option to the kids who by no fault of their own were born to
>>>>poor parents.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Just about every kid in the US has the OPPORTUNITY for a
>>> "good eduction" IF THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE IT. The problem is that many
>>> do not: they spit in the face of that opportunity. But it is there
>>> for those who want it.
That is not true in my experience. As a military officer I have had
thousands of kids that society thought were not worth the effort in my
units. Very few were not able to learn and many started college while on
active duty. In every unit during the 25 years I was active duty I never
met one that was not capable of more and most achived more. In this
country we take kids that live in poor families and because poor people
live in poor school districts we give them a poor education. After they
graduate they are faced with a poor job with a poor future. While they
are living this poor life we show them the life styles of the rich and
famous, show them BMW adds and CNN runs stories on whether to buy an
American Yacht or a cheaper Chinese Yacht. After a while some join the
military I took those kids who were totally defeated at the ripe old age
of 18 and gave them opportunity, structure, and dignity. Those kids are
the ones who are the members of the best military in the world and it is
the best because of them. Those soldiers doing their jobs in Iraq or
Afghanistan or putting out fires in the west are not the sons of the
wealthy or in most cases not the sons of the middle class. They are the
kids that some folks decided were not worth the effort and they were
wrong. This country needs to have a national service requirement just so
the average middle class and upper class kids can see that their is no
birth right, no genetic difference, and no inherent laziness or stupidity
among the lower classes.
>>
>>That like saying since you can lead a horse to water but can't make it
>>drink no horses will be led to water. I disagree completely.
>
> You can send a kid to school, but you can't make him think.
>
Sure you can. If the kid see a light at the end of the tunnel he will
seek the light. The republicans turn the light off and wonder why those
stupid kids get lost. If a HS diploma made a difference they would seek
it. Today it doesn't lead to a better job or a brighter future.
We need to extend public education to 2 years of college or trade school.
>>
>>> I worked with a recent MS in chemistry from the UW. His family was
>>> from China and I think he was born there. He went to grade and high
>>> schools in an inner city school system where most kids dropped out,
>>> but he learned enough to get a scholarship to the UW.
>>>
>>
>>Apples and oranges -
>
> No students and students. Those who want to learn and those who don't.
>
>>...The Chinese family structure is completely different
>>than todays American family ...
>
> Yes. And that is the problem. So the answer is to have the least of us
to become third world? That is just silly - not an answer or a solution.
>
>
>>...and the solution is not for our poor to
>>become Chinese in their ability to sleep twenty to a room, eat rice
>>and fish day in and day out and sacrifice every aspect of their lives
>>for the future of their children.
>
> Actually it WAS the desire of families to work hard and to sacrifice
> for the future of their children that made the US great. And if/when
> we lose that, we will fall behind other countries (like China and
> India) that still have it.
>
I disagree. The families than lived in this country for the first one
hundred years were not less capable, less hard working. Public education
helped some in the last part of the century. The labor reforms of Teddy
Roosevelt help some and the inventiveness of Americans helped some. But
it wasn't until after WWII, after the social and labor reforms of FDR and
Truman that America became a great country. In my opinion those reforms
would have been less or nonexistant without the tremendous struggle our
fathers and grandfathers endured with the great depression followed by a
world war. Because the struggle was shared by all Americans from all
classes the shared sacrifice muted the normal conservative voices of the
time. Today those voices are now back in the main stream and loudly
preaching selfishness, greed, inconsideration and the protection of
wealth to the detriment of the common good.
I believe just as Tito was able to be the glue that held Yugoslavis
togather Saddam was the glue that held Iraq togather. Both were despots.
We kept both, aided both - it was at the time in our national interest.
There were arguements to invade Iraq.
The one I believe was the real reason was the military was losing is
ability to stage out of Saudi Arabia. The militant fundimentalist's were
forcing the Saudi Royals to ask us to leave. The US remained safe during
the cold war by basing close to the threat. We needed a base close to the
threat. Afghanistan by itself could provide that because Saddam did have
the weapons to reach across his border and would more than likely use
them. He also remained a threat to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Saddam had to
go.
It's an arguement that might have eventually gotten the approval of the
American people. But Bush chose to fabricate, stretch, and obscure
instead. Having the war might or might not have been a mistake - time
will tell. Being dishonest was a mistake.
>>
>>>>...The current administration's tired old trickle down
>>>>policy isn't working any better than it did under Reagan.
>>>
>>> Actually the US economy has been better than ever for the last 20
>>> years. Low inflation and low unemployment and just two shallow and
>>> short recessions. That is good by historic standards.
>>>
Actually it hasn't for half the population.
>>The economy in 60's was better that the 70's and the 80's. It perked
>>up in the nineties and has dwindled since. In the early 70's the
>>minimun wage was hooked to one half of the average manufacture workers
>>hourly wages. Nixon change it to 'at the whim of the politicians'
>>who's own raises are automatic unless they vote to stop them. In the
>>60's a HS grad could work for minimum wages and with a buddy share an
>>apartment, buy a car and start living the American dream. Today the
>>minimum wage is a joke. Families are now working two and three jobs to
>>live where one job was sufficient before. That is not progress by any
>>stretch of the imagination.
>
> The federal minimum wage is not the measure of much of anything. The
> average income of families is. And that has increased since the
> 1960's.
>
Answered above.
>>
>>Unemployment numbers and the way they are figured has changed several
>>times and just like a 1200 sat test result today is not the equal of
>>1200 sat test result in the 60's the uemployment figures of 5.6 are
>>more like 10%-12%.
>
> ??? An even larger fraction of the population is now in the workforce
> than was in the 1960's
>
Not a good thing - no one to raise the children.
>>..A resent study shows a 25% unemployment rate for black males.
>
> And what was that figure in 1960?
I'll look around for the number. I doubt it was more.
>
>>That's bad whether your a liberal or a conservative. The current Bush
>>policy of not extending unemployment insurance is only to avoid seeing
>>a more realistic jobs picture. The articles I've read indicate that
>>170,000 to 240,000 jobs are needed each month to break even ...
>
> Break even with the 1.6 million immigrants each year? I hear Kerry
> wants to create 10 million new jobs for those 8 million Americans he
> say want a job. So are we to assume the other 2 million jobs are for
> the immigrants that will come for them?
Arguing Bush's job creation with pessimistic speculation isn't going to
work. Bush will go down as the first president since Hoover to have a net
jobs loss. That is a dismal performance. To argue that doing anything
different might set another record is a little weak.
>
> I predict that by November the economy will be a plus for Bush. Kerry
> should push stem cell research as his difference with Bush.
>
By November the cash from refinancing will have been spent. Consumer debt
will take a toll on American families as the interest rates go up. I
predict a depression if Bush goes four more years. The consumption is
driven not by purchases of goochi handbags, face lifts and rolex watches
but by bread, clothing, shoes, and Chevys. What Reagan did to give Bush I
a recession Bush II will finish.
>
>>.... Supply side economics
>>has never worked to do anything other that shrink the middle and
>>enrich the upper.
>
> The US has been operating in the Reagan Supply Side for the last 20
> years, and we have done OK. Both as compared to Europe and Japan, and
> as compared to the past. Remember there were 2 recessions during the
> 1960's.
>
> And what do you mean "shrink the middle"? How do you define "middle"?
> (I say lots of "middle income" people have moved up to "upper income"
> during the last 20 years.)
>
Many more have moved down.
>>...It's time to put that puppy to bed once and for all. Not once
>>has a raise in the minumum wage decreased the availability of jobs
>
> Hey lets make it $20 per hour since we KNOW that this cannot possibly
> cost any jobs.
>
Extreme examples don't make a point.
>>...and
>>not once has enriching the rich benefitted the poor.
>
> When poor people become rich, is that enriching the rich?
>
The exception to the rule.
>
>>....The recent retail
>>sales data was a perfect picture of the outcome. The extremely small
>>luxuary goods sector grew while the large discount sector remained
>>flat. To think all the road workers, retail clerks and lower
>>management folks have started buying BMWs is fairly foolish. The
>>facts don't support the words of this administration. Four more years
>>of the same may well bring about a depression. In my lifetime this is
>>the worst president, the worst administration and the worst congress I
>>have ever experienced.
>
> I can remember when Nixon was the worst president ever. He was going
> to cancel the 1972 (or was that the 1976?) election and rule as
> dictator. And this was a certainty, as my Leftish friends KNEW from
> inside information.
>
Again extremes only point out the lack of a reasonable arguement.
>>...Just the
>>other day I saw something that I never expected to see. A government
>>TV Ad warning pregnant women to not eat fish because of high mercury
>>content. An entire food group judged to be bad for our unborn
>>children. Amazing, especially when one looks at the recent increases
>>in the allowable limits of mercury emissions. So instead of lowering
>>the output of mercury our government decided the best course was to
>>just spend a few million of TV ads.
>
> ??? Mercury has been in fish for decades. Only now they warn people
> about it. Is that BAD?
>
Yes - extremely bad. The solution is to reduce the output or at least
maintain. Bush increased the allowable levels.
> If you want to reduce mercury emissions (as well as CO2), support
> shutting down coal power plants. And nuclear is the only technology
> that is ready to replace them now.
>
We need a visionary leader and a manhattan project to find the next
source of cheap sustainable energy. Not a man with one foot in the era of
Mckinnley and the other in his mouth.
>>
>>Our TV's are inundated with get rich schemes, miracle cures for every
>>desease and ailment known to mankind, and even fountains of youth in a
>>pill. In my generation the fleecing of the public would not have been
>>allowed by the FDA or the government. Today it's common. In my time
>>punishment was reserved to a court of law. Today banks, video stores
>>and just about anybody selling anything on credit punish their
>>customers with grossly high late fees.
>>
>>I read an article that said the Blockbusters primary source of income
>>was late fees. In my time they were allowed to recover the cost
>>incurred but not allowed to profit from anothers inabilty to pay on
>>time.
>
> Er, a late fee is not because someone could not PAY on time. It is
> because they didn't return the item on time. I say that means that
> money is less important to them than time.
>
Strange the courts didn't see it that way. Blockbusters was forced to
repay millions in overcharged late fees.
> I also see people buying bottled water for $1.75 a pint, when standing
> beside a drinking fountain (and Madison city water is the best there
> is, at least as good as anything in a bottle).
>
> I say this means those people have more dollars than sense.
>
>>
>>There is a severe shortage of gentlemen in this country.
>
> There may be just the two of us ;-)
I agree. We'd make a great set of reasonable talking heads.
>
>
>>>>
>>>>Do you teach?
>>>
>>> I did for 15 years (chemisrty, physics, geology, astronomy.
>>> oceanography) but not for the last 15 years.
>>
>>I retired from the military but start teaching at a community college
>>this fall.
>
> Good for you. I hope you have students that are there because they
> want to learn. Will you be teaching them to field strip an AK 47?
> (just kidding).
I flew for twenty five years and you would never guess in a million years
what I'll be teaching.
3D computer animation. Us right brained liberals are all frustrated
artists at heart.
I really can't wait to show these kids the opportunity that exists today
in that field. I'll bet in a few years John Wayne and Cary Grant will be
acting again as digital stars. Someday a digital actor will win the
academy award for best actor in a feature film. Instead of one grossly
overpaid actor walking to the podium a troop of dozens will accept the
award - a liberals dream. Turning the wealth of one into the success of
many instead of one more Cezanne for the rec. room.
I'm outta here for a couple of weeks - time for a vacation. The stress of
retirement has taken it's toll.
Johnny 5
news:Xns952CE5E5...@216.168.3.44:
> Averages are deceptive numbers. You know that. this country while
> being the wealthest by far is fairly low among industrial nations. 40%
> of americans without health care is a condemnation of the benevolence
> of corporate America. Companies like Walmart and McDonalds
> consistantly report record profits the workers consistantly don't
> share in those profits. Those companies do not have many jobs that
> offer any benefits. Wage stagnation has been a fact throughout this
> unrecovering recovery.
But on the other side of that, me and most of my friends are able to
afford things because of EXXtra low prices that we never had before,
HDTV, nintendo games, etc etc. Did walmart on the national scale really
kill so many jobs compared to the benefit of the goods it delivered to
the masses?
> Family incomes - another deceptive number. When today households
> routinely have two and sometimes three jobs to compare it fairly to
> the single worker families of the 60's one would have to double the
> income of the single worker family - wonder how it would compare
> then. Not only that but when both parents work the expenses do not
> just double, the tax rate is worse, the childcare expenses are high,
> transportation costs and more eat a goodly portion of one income. Come
> on Jim, you can not honestly believe in these arguements your using.
Look, I don't have a nice new lincoln navigator, or a big 10K square foot
house or a walk in spa or a heated backyard pool or steak dinners every
night at 50 bucks a piece at outback, but I have cellphone, and internet,
and a free library - the people that want the LUXURY can work hard and
get all that luxury - my friends working 40-80 hour a week jobs usually
because they trying to keep up with the joneses - buying an Apple G5
instead of a cheap X86 clone, buying bottled water instead of the
communal water fountain, getting a new BMW X5 every year instead of
driving last years model or wearing last years fashion trends in clothes.
Stop spoiling the shopping machine, stop spoiling her little daughter
which is becoming the shopping machine mini me clone and you won't have
to WORK 100 hours a week to keep them happy, the markerting forces of
RETAILING and SERVICES are working against you, its not TRENDY to do your
own nails anymore when you can go pay a nail technician to do it, and if
your man isnt paying a nail technician he doesnt really love you.
The family in the 60's didnt have the luxuries I have, or what the
JONESES have, if they want what I have, they dont have to really change
thier life much, heck they can even work LESS, but if they want what the
JONESES of 2004 are chasing after, then YES the 1960's family is going to
have to work 5 jobs, but they DONT HAVE TO.
> I say we fill our grad schools again with the bright shiny faces of
> American kids.
I cant send the crack head to grad school to LEARN if they dont want too
- what is hard to understand about that? THey want to dance with
brittney and smoke crack rock, not learn economics. You cant FORCE
benevolence and knowledge on someone - that is wasteful.
You know as well as I do that the percentage of
> Americans kids doing grad work in the hard sciences have been
> declining for years.
THey made the choice to chase after FUN over LEARNING, THIER CHOICE,
THEIR FREEDOM, THEIR FUTURE SUFFERING for STUPID CHOICES. Slant eye is
choosing HARD WORK and boring study, not fun nights at the casino.
Most people are willing to pay more to be amused than to be educated.
~Robert C. Savage, Life Lessons
> They can't compete without a stable family life and an even playing
> field. The stable family has disappeared at the same rate as the
> increase of dual worker families and single parent familes.
Burn the bra some more. Families - as the bra burners tried to redefine
them - does not seem to work, too many chiefs and not enough indians,
every group needs a leader, we have the prez, the towel heads have osama,
the kids have WHO? mom or daddy - daddy says NO, they go cry to mommy,
mommy gets a reversal. Mommy says no, they go cry to daddy, get a
reversal, we are not teaching our kids to listen to mommy or daddy, only
to use mommy and daddy to overturn the other ones power. In china if
daddy says NO, or mommy says NO what happens? The bible said MAN was
head of household, this inherintly puts women in a weaker position, but
there were societies in the past where woman were the celebrated leaders
and men the followers - democracy can cause logjam sometimes and you need
a joan of arc or a moses to LEAD the people to victory, not divide the
power. We seem unable to decide wether hillary or bill holds the reigns
of power.
> It will become less available if the current crop of republicans get
> their way.
What was the congressional voting record for tax on the internet?
> That is not true in my experience. As a military officer I have had
> thousands of kids that society thought were not worth the effort in my
> units.
I met some of your kids going to fort benning, they were crack heads and
heroin users, does that mean they can't be turned around, NO, my father
was an army recruiter and he made men out of criminals that had no
direction in life. But after you give them HOW MANY chances do you give
up on forcing the horse to drink?
> Very few were not able to learn and many started college while
> on active duty. In every unit during the 25 years I was active duty I
> never met one that was not capable of more and most achived more.
Given a good structued environment that encourages self respect and
teamwork we all are gonna do better. Why just do this in the military,
why not do it in society in general? Why was my dad paid to only turn
criminals into soldiers and not into ghandi?
In
> this country we take kids that live in poor families and because poor
> people live in poor school districts we give them a poor education.
That soldier you trained to kill a man, why couldn't you train him to
read engineering and programming books? Why does history of warfare have
to be what is taught and brings the criminals together instead teaching
economics and the history of free trade?
> After they graduate they are faced with a poor job with a poor future.
Look, Nike is telling them to buy 200 dollar shoes instead of going to
the library, Brittney is teaching them it is cool to SPIT on your
boyfriend, Jadakiss is teaching them to get that bitch brittney they have
to get her hooked on crack rock because she wont respect some geek at the
library, but she will respect a soldier that murders men and a crack
dealer that controls the HIGH. We have not broke the chain of violence,
we still glorify the alpha male that is violent and rebellious and self
destructive.
> While they are living this poor life we show them the life styles of
> the rich and famous, show them BMW adds and CNN runs stories on
> whether to buy an American Yacht or a cheaper Chinese Yacht.
Right, give the children or force the children to watch BEn Kingsley in
Ghandi - don't let them see that Jadakiss with his 9mm and crack rock
dealings gets all the chicks - do you know wesley snipes had to go to a
CRACK HOUSE and sleep with a CRACK HEAD to get him some strange - you
know what kind of message that sends to ME? That a man that successful,
that famous couldnt get basic human needs met any other way - I want to
think its because its so HARD any other way than a crack head - not that
he prefers dealing with crack heads over regular people, that hugh grant
had to go rent a hooker because hurley was being a bitch that day - I
dont know - maybe hugh is a real asshole but maybe it is hurley that was
the real bitch, sure there are guys that are real assholes, but I know a
lot of GOOD MILITARY guys that would die for thier family without a
hesitation and all they want is for thier shopping machines to love them
and give them some nookie and she keeps stringing that donkey along with
a never delivered carrot. I see this with too many of my friends, - my
friends being the wimpy geeks and not the alpha male crack dealer. They
keep buying more and more dinners for the chicks, more and more being
NICE to them, more and more BITCHING out to their whims, and crack dealer
is getting what the wimpy geek really wants some tender loving. With all
thier knowledge they can't see that brittney and jadakiss are influencing
the cool factor and the marketers have a NEED to DIVIDE us - gender being
a way to divide us - for you dont make money with a peaceful society, you
make MONEY starting a war between men and women and then supplying arms
to both sides. The bitch liberals on one side, the asshole republicans
on the other. You think the people that sell political elephant and
donkey posters want the reds and the blues to get together - they will
lose thier business model.
After a
> while some join the military I took those kids who were totally
> defeated at the ripe old age of 18 and gave them opportunity,
> structure, and dignity.
Right, because for some reason it was worth paying my dad to do this when
a SOLDIER was needed, but not when a GOOD PEACEFUL CITIZEN was needed -
we let our mutlicorps and entertainment institutions DIVIDE US so they
can sell arms to both sides - the division is irrelevant, black white,
girl boy, old young smart dumb.
In the 60's I could hang out at the coffee shop and meet some cool chicks
and have a good time, but now that is EVIL.
Those kids are the ones who are the members of
> the best military in the world and it is the best because of them.
> Those soldiers doing their jobs in Iraq or Afghanistan or putting out
> fires in the west are not the sons of the wealthy or in most cases not
> the sons of the middle class.
What do the wealthy know that you don't? Hmmmm.
They are the kids that some folks
> decided were not worth the effort and they were wrong.
They were not worth the effort if you wanted a peaceful citizen, you only
got PAID to MAKE them into MEN because it was worth the effort to FIGHT
WARS and MURDER MEN. Why did you work for pay making soldiers? Jesus
fished for men for FREE - not for the pay of the roman army.
This country
> needs to have a national service requirement just so the average
Oh great, I would expect that from a person who believes training DEATH
is the way to prosperity, why did you take criminals and my father take
criminals and make MEN out of them for PAY and jesus didn't take MONEY
from the roman army to make soldiers, but went out in the society and
made GHANDIs and MOTHER theresas for FREE. Israel has a 2 year mandatory
service - FUCK THAT SHIT - YOU ARE WRONG. Make love, not war soldier.
> middle class and upper class kids can see that their is no birth
> right, no genetic difference, and no inherent laziness or stupidity
> among the lower classes.
Church does that already or is supposed too, without teaching military
history, bloodshed in the name of freedom, or how to kill your fellow man
with a bullet or hand to hand combat trooper.
> Sure you can. If the kid see a light at the end of the tunnel he will
> seek the light.
I saw brittneys pussy, and only one way for wesley snipes and hugh grant
to get it.
The republicans turn the light off and wonder why
> those stupid kids get lost. If a HS diploma made a difference they
> would seek it. Today it doesn't lead to a better job or a brighter
> future. We need to extend public education to 2 years of college or
> trade school.
You can get on the web at the free public library and learn at your own
pace anything you want, but humans are lazy, its a lot easier to get
brittney on crack rock to get what you want than to work 20 years and
hope she chooses to give it to you willingly when her whole life her
mother said DONT do that and to SELL it to you for a continously
increasing price.
>> Actually it WAS the desire of families to work hard and to sacrifice
>> for the future of their children that made the US great. And if/when
>> we lose that, we will fall behind other countries (like China and
>> India) that still have it.
>>
> I disagree. The families than lived in this country for the first
> one
> hundred years were not less capable, less hard working. Public
> education helped some in the last part of the century. The labor
> reforms of Teddy Roosevelt help some and the inventiveness of
> Americans helped some. But it wasn't until after WWII, after the
> social and labor reforms of FDR and Truman that America became a great
> country. In my opinion those reforms would have been less or
> nonexistant without the tremendous struggle our fathers and
> grandfathers endured with the great depression followed by a world
> war. Because the struggle was shared by all Americans from all classes
> the shared sacrifice muted the normal conservative voices of the time.
> Today those voices are now back in the main stream and loudly
> preaching selfishness, greed, inconsideration and the protection of
> wealth to the detriment of the common good.
Listen up lefties:
Teddy Roosevelt "There is no room in this country for hyphenated
Americanism...The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to
ruin...would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling
nationalities."
(Speech, New York, 1915)
No more african-americans, no more cuban-americans, no more POP stars
DIVIDING us, no more jadakiss, ricky martin, or brittney using race as a
way to PRESERVE independent culture and IDENTITY. BURN THE DUMB LIBERALS
that would FRACTURE our great nation, BURN THEM AT THE STAKE with their
AFRICAN AMERICANISM. There is ONE AMERICA, not africa, mexico, and cuba
AMERICA. One language, ENGLISH.
Bush said PISS on the NAACP, Kerry is licking thier DIARHHEA, the NAACP
is EVIL if you believe what TEDDY ROOSEVELT said. No AFRICAN AMERICAN,
just AMERICANS.
Monoculture, not multi-culturalism.
You are right blackie, Africa is a BLACK thing and I WOULDNT understand,
so go back to AFRICA if you dont want to be an AMERICAN, I came from
SCOTLAND but I dont go around saying SCOTTISH american or IRISH american,
what SHIT!
> The one I believe was the real reason was the military was losing is
> ability to stage out of Saudi Arabia. The militant fundimentalist's
> were forcing the Saudi Royals to ask us to leave. The US remained safe
> during the cold war by basing close to the threat. We needed a base
> close to the threat. Afghanistan by itself could provide that because
> Saddam did have the weapons to reach across his border and would more
> than likely use them. He also remained a threat to Saudi Arabia and
> Kuwait. Saddam had to go.
>
> It's an arguement that might have eventually gotten the approval of
> the American people. But Bush chose to fabricate, stretch, and obscure
> instead. Having the war might or might not have been a mistake - time
> will tell. Being dishonest was a mistake.
It is horrible to be lied too, but the leviathan at the top maybe feels
LYING to us is getting things done that will HELP all of us, isn't it
better to EDUCATE us to the TRUTH and let us make up our own minds, I am
more accepting of slick willies moral failure to keep his dick out of
monicas mouth than for his LIE that he never did it, the same for bush or
any politicians, you want to be my servant, you tell me the truth, cause
your dirty secrets start causing problems. How are any of us supposed to
learn if we keep getting lied too.
>> ??? An even larger fraction of the population is now in the
>> workforce than was in the 1960's
>>
> Not a good thing - no one to raise the children.
Yes there is SOMEONE to raise the children, the daycare center, grandma,
the welfare department, big brother and big multicorp - NIKE ads, MTV,
MOVIES, TV, JadaKISS, the MILITARY recruiter, Nintendo, Spongebob, the
PREACHER - Jesus, Saddam the FCC. The crackdealer. Oreilly, HAHA! There
are lots of inputs kids are getting today because mommy and daddy dont
want to be nursemaids.
Burning the BRA turned our baby makers and mothers into bitch cunt
business execs - burn some more bra's Leftie. Tell brittney HER CAREER
is more important than the CHILDREN she could mother and raise.
>> Break even with the 1.6 million immigrants each year? I hear Kerry
>> wants to create 10 million new jobs for those 8 million Americans he
>> say want a job. So are we to assume the other 2 million jobs are for
>> the immigrants that will come for them?
>
> Arguing Bush's job creation with pessimistic speculation isn't going
> to work. Bush will go down as the first president since Hoover to have
> a net jobs loss. That is a dismal performance. To argue that doing
> anything different might set another record is a little weak.
Who wants to work anymore? For what? The donkey gets TIRED of chasing
that carrot after awhile and just SITS DOWN.
> By November the cash from refinancing will have been spent. Consumer
> debt will take a toll on American families as the interest rates go
> up. I predict a depression if Bush goes four more years. The
I predict all economic events are tied to population factors in strong
ways, and having a bunch of babies and then telling them to NOT BREED
because you will be a mans bitch and BURN you bra takes this country from
47 workers to 1 SS benefeciary in the past to 2 workers to 1 beneficiary
by 2030 and that you think any one MAN, bush or kerry or Brittney has the
power to alter that shows ignorance - Brittney cant squirt them out fast
enough at this point - we didn't smooth out the population shocks and the
titanic is going down, and you down in 3rd class arguing with the richies
up in 1st class is not gonna stop the boat from sinking, putting in a new
captain is not gonna stop the boat from sinking, its going DOWN - we
already hit the iceberg - changing captains at this point MAKES NO
DIFFERENCE - WAKE UP.
> Again extremes only point out the lack of a reasonable arguement.
I agree, why do you think wether bush or kerry is in office will make a
difference to the coming baby boomers that are about to retire and dont
have enough young to buy thier debt, buy thier bonds, and pay thier SS?
>>
> We need a visionary leader and a manhattan project to find the next
> source of cheap sustainable energy. Not a man with one foot in the era
> of Mckinnley and the other in his mouth.
Nuclear energy is already HERE, but if the TITANIC has already struck the
iceberg - how does changing the captain stop it from going down???
>> want to learn. Will you be teaching them to field strip an AK 47?
>> (just kidding).
>
> I flew for twenty five years and you would never guess in a million
> years what I'll be teaching.
I would hope it is peace and love, and not war and military discipline.
> 3D computer animation. Us right brained liberals are all frustrated
> artists at heart.
HAHA! Right, you wanted peace and love and acceptance, didn't get it in
the peaceful society, got thrown into warfare and found an acceptance you
never found in peace - this confuses you.
> I really can't wait to show these kids the opportunity that exists
> today in that field. I'll bet in a few years John Wayne and Cary Grant
> will be acting again as digital stars. Someday a digital actor will
> win the academy award for best actor in a feature film. Instead of one
> grossly overpaid actor walking to the podium a troop of dozens will
> accept the award - a liberals dream. Turning the wealth of one into
> the success of many instead of one more Cezanne for the rec. room.
Yah I watched Simone - what did you think of the Movie?
Jim Blair
"The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cdk58...@news2.newsguy.com...
> Jim Blair wrote:
>
> > retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:58:57 +0000 (UTC), Jim Blair <s...@sig.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Sounds to me like the recent boom discredits the "demographic theory"
of
> >>>the depression of the 1990's.
> >
> > retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>Why? Are they forbidden from taking steps to address it?
> >>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > But what steps have they taken?
> >
>
>
> What if they didn't take ANY steps at all.
Hi,
The fact is that a decade long recession in Japan did end about 4 years ago.
My question was why? Did it "just happen" or was there a reason? And
if there was a reason, it would relate to why there was a recession in the
first place.
>....What if they just waited
> while the Republicans continued to destroy the American economy and
> simply watched as theirs IMPROVED by comparison?
The Japanese economy has improved recently, not just "by comparison" to the
US
but as measured by their GDP.
And the US economy is also on the rebound after the slowdown that started in
late 2000.
>
> What if the economic boom that was experience in the USA while the
> Republicans were not in total control made Japan look somewhat
> anemic in the larger world
??? The US economy has been doing very well since about 1983. That has been
during administrations of both political parties.
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/reagan.txt
>...and now as the Republicans continue
> to construct their sharply pointed pyramid of wealth and power
> the opposite is the case?
Your "sharply pointed pyramid of wealth and power" has been happening for
the last
20 years, during administrations of both political parties.
>
> Republicanism maximizes RENT and minimizes WAGES.
I think you are mis-understanding the changes in US demographics. More
income is now
from dividents and interest relative to income from wages. Because more
people are older
and retired or semi-retired.
>
> That is, of course, the opposite of what Smith says political economy
> is all about:
>
> Of Systems Of Political Economy
> Book IV , Wealth Of Nations -- Adam Smith
>
> "Political economy, considered as a branch of the science of statesman or
> legislator, proposes two distinct objects: first, to provide a plentiful
> revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to
> provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and secondly, to
> supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public
> services. It proposes to enrich both the people and the sovereign."
Note that real family incomes in 2000 were the highest ever, and that was
true for families in
all 5 income quintiles.
>
> And since "the sovereign" here in the USA is "the people" then this
> remark by Smith is not to be interpreted as to enrich the wealthy
> Republicans at the expense of the common people.
But a lot of those "common people" ARE Republicans. About half of them ;-)
The Trucker
>
> "The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:cdk58...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Jim Blair wrote:
>>
>> > retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:58:57 +0000 (UTC), Jim Blair <s...@sig.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>Sounds to me like the recent boom discredits the "demographic theory"
> of
>> >>>the depression of the 1990's.
>> >
>> > retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Why? Are they forbidden from taking steps to address it?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > But what steps have they taken?
>> >
>>
>>
>> What if they didn't take ANY steps at all.
>
> Hi,
>
> The fact is that a decade long recession in Japan did end about 4 years
> ago.
Yup. That seems to roughly coincide with the Democrats in the White
House.
> My question was why? Did it "just happen" or was there a reason? And
> if there was a reason, it would relate to why there was a recession in the
> first place.
And it all depends on how you measure a "recession". It is all
definitional. If you use neocon measuring sticks they will probably
show that neocons are "correct" in their propositions.
http://www.btinternet.com/~pae_news/review/issue23.htm
>>....What if they just waited
>> while the Republicans continued to destroy the American economy and
>> simply watched as theirs IMPROVED by comparison?
>
> The Japanese economy has improved recently, not just "by comparison" to
> the US
> but as measured by their GDP.
>
> And the US economy is also on the rebound after the slowdown that started
> in late 2000.
Sure it is:) (snicker). Let us measure the "goodness" of the economy by
the economic and power distance between the very wealthy and the common
people. Let us understate inflation as the stability in the general price
level while wages go to hell and asset prices go through the roof.
>>
>> What if the economic boom that was experience in the USA while the
>> Republicans were not in total control made Japan look somewhat
>> anemic in the larger world
>
> ??? The US economy has been doing very well since about 1983. That has
> been during administrations of both political parties.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/reagan.txt
Oh how the Reagan religionists love those cherry picked numbers and
causality claims.
>>...and now as the Republicans continue
>> to construct their sharply pointed pyramid of wealth and power
>> the opposite is the case?
>
> Your "sharply pointed pyramid of wealth and power" has been happening for
> the last
> 20 years, during administrations of both political parties.
Yup. True story. Ever since the progressive income tax was destroyed
by the Pugs.
>>
>> Republicanism maximizes RENT and minimizes WAGES.
>
> I think you are mis-understanding the changes in US demographics.
> More
> income is now
> from dividents and interest relative to income from wages. Because more
> people are older
> and retired or semi-retired.
Nope. You are, in typical fashion, overstating the results of
demographics and understating the results of increasing taxes on
production and consumption and decreasing taxes on economic rent.
>>
>> That is, of course, the opposite of what Smith says political economy
>> is all about:
>>
>> Of Systems Of Political Economy
>> Book IV , Wealth Of Nations -- Adam Smith
>>
>> "Political economy, considered as a branch of the science of statesman or
>> legislator, proposes two distinct objects: first, to provide a plentiful
>> revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to
>> provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and secondly, to
>> supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public
>> services. It proposes to enrich both the people and the sovereign."
>
> Note that real family incomes in 2000 were the highest ever, and that was
> true for families in
> all 5 income quintiles.
And since then they have gone to hell in a hand basket due to the rent
maximizing policies of the Bush Regime.
>>
>> And since "the sovereign" here in the USA is "the people" then this
>> remark by Smith is not to be interpreted as to enrich the wealthy
>> Republicans at the expense of the common people.
>
> But a lot of those "common people" ARE Republicans. About half of them
> ;-)
Less than half the people in this nation are stupid enough to be
Republicans. But the Republican "leaders" are working quite diligently
in their efforts to change that.
Jim Blair
"Chief" <Ch...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns952CE5E5...@216.168.3.44...
Hi,
The reasons Americans don't live longer has little to do with healthcare and
a
lot to do with personal choices. We eat too much, smoke too much and
exercise too little. And shoot each other too much.
>....Companies like Walmart and McDonalds consistantly
> report record profits the workers consistantly don't share in those
> profits.
Workers get wages, shareholders get profits. And in many companies,
workers are also the owners. One year when I worked for a private company
I made close to as much money from stock options as I was paid in wages.
>...Those companies do not have many jobs that offer any benefits.
"Benefits" include everything from free parking to stock options to employee
discounts, to free lunches. They are hard to compare.
> Wage stagnation has been a fact throughout this unrecovering recovery.
I say "wage" data is misleading; "income" is a better measure, and
"compensation" even better.
> >
> >>...The rollback of environmental protections, labor safety laws,
> >>and general labor laws will only insure 25% live better.
> >
> > Real (ie inflation corrected) family incomes reached their all time
> > high in 2000 for all 5 income quintiles, not just for the "rich".
>
> Family incomes - another deceptive number. When today households
> routinely have two and sometimes three jobs to compare it fairly to the
> single worker families of the 60's one would have to double the income of
> the single worker family - wonder how it would compare then.
So the wife should stay home and dust and clean and look after the kids?
Sounds like our Johnny.
>....Not only
> that but when both parents work the expenses do not just double, the tax
> rate is worse, ...
Er, are you questioning the higher income tax bracket that families are
pushed into
when both people work?
>...the childcare expenses are high, transportation costs and
> more eat a goodly portion of one income. Come on Jim, you can not
> honestly believe in these arguements your using.
> >
> > http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
> >
> > Table F-3.
I say that people today live longer, travel more, have larger houses, etc.
than
in the past, and all the complaining does not change that.
> >>
> >>Globalism is good for every citizen on the planet - except the
> >>American citizen that has to live through the decades of changes.
> >
> > Some US workers lose when jobs move to India or China. But workers
> > there benefit. I say better the jobs go there than that they move
> > here for those jobs.
> >
> I say we fill our grad schools again with the bright shiny faces of
> American kids. You know as well as I do that the percentage of Americans
> kids doing grad work in the hard sciences have been declining for years.
Yes, but not because foreign kids have pushed them out. We import foreign
students into our graduate programs BECAUSE not enough US kids major
in science to fill the graduate programs. The US kids COULD, but they don't.
They study Women's History or "The Oppression of Minorities by Capitalism"
or whatever, instead of science and math.
>
>
> >>...The same
> >>mistakes made in our education system - lower the standards to level
> >>the playing field are the same mistakes we are making to 'globalize'
> >>America. We are lowering our expectations for some distant fictional
> >>future with little concern for the common good.
> >
> > I think the fact that US student know they must compete with those in
> > Korea and China and India motivates them. (at least it motivates some
> > of them).
> >
>
> They can't compete without a stable family life and an even playing
> field. The stable family has disappeared at the same rate as the increase
> of dual worker families and single parent familes.
But the studies I see say kids with mothers who work outside the home do
BETTER than those with stay-at-home mom's. The "problem" is not the
working mother but the absent father.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>...Both my
> >>>>kids have good educations from top tier colleges but go in and out
> >>>>of work occasionally. If they didn't have a good education, I could
> >>>>see where they would be in trouble in today's world.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, education will (I predict) become ever more important.
> >>>
>
> It will become less available if the current crop of republicans get
> their way.
??? Education has been ever more "available" as measured by high school and
college graduates. And you are really hung up on this Rebublicans are BAD
and
Democrats are GOOD thing. Note that it is Republicans (mostly) who want
poor inner-city kids to have a crack at private school education.
But you see those who chose to join the military. Maybe they have more
ambition than the others?
I am all for giving those who want more, the opportunity.
>...This country needs to have a national service requirement just so
> the average middle class and upper class kids can see that their is no
> birth right, no genetic difference, and no inherent laziness or stupidity
> among the lower classes.
Bring back the Draft?
> >>
> >>That like saying since you can lead a horse to water but can't make it
> >>drink no horses will be led to water. I disagree completely.
> >
> > You can send a kid to school, but you can't make him think.
> >
> Sure you can. If the kid see a light at the end of the tunnel he will
> seek the light. The republicans turn the light off and wonder why those
> stupid kids get lost. If a HS diploma made a difference they would seek
> it. Today it doesn't lead to a better job or a brighter future.
You think the decline in interest in science education started when Reagan
took office?
Then interest jumped the day Clinton was elected (or is that took office?)
but then
dropped when Dubwa was elected? It is all Democrats and Republicans and not
long term changes in US student attitudes?
> We need to extend public education to 2 years of college or trade school.
For those who want it? Or just to keep those who disrupt high school
classes
around for 2 more years?
>
> >>
> >>> I worked with a recent MS in chemistry from the UW. His family was
> >>> from China and I think he was born there. He went to grade and high
> >>> schools in an inner city school system where most kids dropped out,
> >>> but he learned enough to get a scholarship to the UW.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Apples and oranges -
> >
> > No students and students. Those who want to learn and those who don't.
> >
> >>...The Chinese family structure is completely different
> >>than todays American family ...
> >
> > Yes. And that is the problem.
>...So the answer is to have the least of us
> to become third world? That is just silly - not an answer or a solution.
Some parts of the US are a like like the 3rd world. But the Welfare Reform
(pushed
by Republicans and signed by Clinton) may be changing that.
.....
> I believe just as Tito was able to be the glue that held Yugoslavis
> togather Saddam was the glue that held Iraq togather. Both were despots.
> We kept both, aided both - it was at the time in our national interest.
> There were arguements to invade Iraq.
>
> The one I believe was the real reason was the military was losing is
> ability to stage out of Saudi Arabia. The militant fundimentalist's were
> forcing the Saudi Royals to ask us to leave. The US remained safe during
> the cold war by basing close to the threat. We needed a base close to the
> threat. Afghanistan by itself could provide that because Saddam did have
> the weapons to reach across his border and would more than likely use
> them. He also remained a threat to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
And toIsrael.
>....Saddam had to
> go.
>
> It's an arguement that might have eventually gotten the approval of the
> American people. But Bush chose to fabricate, stretch, and obscure
> instead. Having the war might or might not have been a mistake - time
> will tell. Being dishonest was a mistake.
He stressed the factor that sold the case best, and which *every*
intelligence agency
believed: WMD.
> >>
> >>>>...The current administration's tired old trickle down
> >>>>policy isn't working any better than it did under Reagan.
> >>>
> >>> Actually the US economy has been better than ever for the last 20
> >>> years. Low inflation and low unemployment and just two shallow and
> >>> short recessions. That is good by historic standards.
> >>>
>
> Actually it hasn't for half the population.
With higher family incomes for all 5 quintiles, which "half" is that?
>
> >>The economy in 60's was better that the 70's and the 80's. It perked
> >>up in the nineties and has dwindled since. In the early 70's the
> >>minimun wage was hooked to one half of the average manufacture workers
> >>hourly wages. Nixon change it to 'at the whim of the politicians'
> >>who's own raises are automatic unless they vote to stop them. In the
> >>60's a HS grad could work for minimum wages and with a buddy share an
> >>apartment, buy a car and start living the American dream. Today the
> >>minimum wage is a joke. Families are now working two and three jobs to
> >>live where one job was sufficient before. That is not progress by any
> >>stretch of the imagination.
> >
> > The federal minimum wage is not the measure of much of anything. The
> > average income of families is. And that has increased since the
> > 1960's.
> >
> Answered above.
You agree that family incomes are higher, but say that is because wives are
now "forced" to work
when they should stay home?
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/wwives.txt
> >>
> >>Unemployment numbers and the way they are figured has changed several
> >>times and just like a 1200 sat test result today is not the equal of
> >>1200 sat test result in the 60's the uemployment figures of 5.6 are
> >>more like 10%-12%.
> >
> > ??? An even larger fraction of the population is now in the workforce
> > than was in the 1960's
> >
> Not a good thing - no one to raise the children.
Kids raised by 2 working parents are not the problem.
>
> >>..A resent study shows a 25% unemployment rate for black males.
> >
> > And what was that figure in 1960?
>
> I'll look around for the number. I doubt it was more.
And how many blacks would want to return to the US of 1960?
> >
> >>That's bad whether your a liberal or a conservative. The current Bush
> >>policy of not extending unemployment insurance is only to avoid seeing
> >>a more realistic jobs picture. The articles I've read indicate that
> >>170,000 to 240,000 jobs are needed each month to break even ...
> >
> > Break even with the 1.6 million immigrants each year? I hear Kerry
> > wants to create 10 million new jobs for those 8 million Americans he
> > say want a job. So are we to assume the other 2 million jobs are for
> > the immigrants that will come for them?
>
> Arguing Bush's job creation with pessimistic speculation isn't going to
> work. Bush will go down as the first president since Hoover to have a net
> jobs loss. That is a dismal performance. To argue that doing anything
> different might set another record is a little weak.
> >
> > I predict that by November the economy will be a plus for Bush. Kerry
> > should push stem cell research as his difference with Bush.
> >
>
> By November the cash from refinancing will have been spent. Consumer debt
> will take a toll on American families as the interest rates go up. I
> predict a depression if Bush goes four more years.
Sound like you are predicting a depression BEFORE the election.
The consumption is
> driven not by purchases of goochi handbags, face lifts and rolex watches
> but by bread, clothing, shoes, and Chevys. What Reagan did to give Bush I
> a recession Bush II will finish.
So the recession that started AFTER GHW Bush raised taxes and the minimum
wage,
after Reagan was out of office for years, and had warned that this might
trigger a
recession--is now blamed on REAGAN?
> >
> >>.... Supply side economics
> >>has never worked to do anything other that shrink the middle and
> >>enrich the upper.
> >
> > The US has been operating in the Reagan Supply Side for the last 20
> > years, and we have done OK. Both as compared to Europe and Japan, and
> > as compared to the past. Remember there were 2 recessions during the
> > 1960's.
> >
>
>
> > And what do you mean "shrink the middle"? How do you define "middle"?
> > (I say lots of "middle income" people have moved up to "upper income"
> > during the last 20 years.)
> >
> Many more have moved down.
How many people do you think have "moved down" (to a lower real income?)
than
they had in 1983?
>
> >>...It's time to put that puppy to bed once and for all. Not once
> >>has a raise in the minumum wage decreased the availability of jobs
Oh?
http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=356
> >
> > Hey lets make it $20 per hour since we KNOW that this cannot possibly
> > cost any jobs.
> >
> Extreme examples don't make a point.
>
> >>...and
> >>not once has enriching the rich benefitted the poor.
> >
> > When poor people become rich, is that enriching the rich?
> >
> The exception to the rule.
Note that more people in the bottom income quintile at the start where in
the top income
quintile a decade later than remained in the bottom.
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/101.htm
> >>...Just the
> >>other day I saw something that I never expected to see. A government
> >>TV Ad warning pregnant women to not eat fish because of high mercury
> >>content. An entire food group judged to be bad for our unborn
> >>children. Amazing, especially when one looks at the recent increases
> >>in the allowable limits of mercury emissions. So instead of lowering
> >>the output of mercury our government decided the best course was to
> >>just spend a few million of TV ads.
> >
> > ??? Mercury has been in fish for decades. Only now they warn people
> > about it. Is that BAD?
> >
> Yes - extremely bad.
??? BAD to tell people about a problem that has existed for probably a
century and
that we have known about for decades?
>...The solution is to reduce the output or at least
> maintain. Bush increased the allowable levels.
>
> > If you want to reduce mercury emissions (as well as CO2), support
> > shutting down coal power plants. And nuclear is the only technology
> > that is ready to replace them now.
> >
> We need a visionary leader and a manhattan project to find the next
> source of cheap sustainable energy. Not a man with one foot in the era of
> Mckinnley and the other in his mouth.
???? Is that a YES for nuclear power? Saying "sustainable energy" is a
cop-out.
Exactly what do you mean? And which party is the more likely to switch the
US to
nuclear power?
> >>
> >>Our TV's are inundated with get rich schemes, miracle cures for every
> >>desease and ailment known to mankind, and even fountains of youth in a
> >>pill. In my generation the fleecing of the public would not have been
> >>allowed by the FDA or the government. Today it's common. In my time
> >>punishment was reserved to a court of law. Today banks, video stores
> >>and just about anybody selling anything on credit punish their
> >>customers with grossly high late fees.
> >>
> >>I read an article that said the Blockbusters primary source of income
> >>was late fees. In my time they were allowed to recover the cost
> >>incurred but not allowed to profit from anothers inabilty to pay on
> >>time.
> >
> > Er, a late fee is not because someone could not PAY on time. It is
> > because they didn't return the item on time. I say that means that
> > money is less important to them than time.
> >
> Strange the courts didn't see it that way. Blockbusters was forced to
> repay millions in overcharged late fees.
So you can keep your video movie longer than you promised, (screw those
other
people waiting for it) and the find a lawyer to get you some money for doing
that?
It figures.
Er, isn't that "outsourcing" acting to cyberspace? Sounds GOOD to me ;-)
>
> I'm outta here for a couple of weeks - time for a vacation. The stress of
> retirement has taken it's toll.
Jim Blair
"Johnny 5" <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns952D39FAB13F...@65.32.1.8...
...
>
> Teddy Roosevelt "There is no room in this country for hyphenated
> Americanism...The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to
> ruin...would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling
> nationalities."
> (Speech, New York, 1915)
>
> No more african-americans, no more cuban-americans, no more POP stars
> DIVIDING us, no more jadakiss, ricky martin, or brittney using race as a
> way to PRESERVE independent culture and IDENTITY. BURN THE DUMB LIBERALS
> that would FRACTURE our great nation, BURN THEM AT THE STAKE with their
> AFRICAN AMERICANISM. There is ONE AMERICA, not africa, mexico, and cuba
Hi,
I second that. I'm not always a fan of Whoopie Goldberg, but I loved it
when she replied to
a question with "I am not an African-American: I am an AMERICAN!.
Johnny 5
news:cdp8ih$j9h$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu:
>>....Companies like Walmart and McDonalds consistantly
>> report record profits the workers consistantly don't share in those
>> profits.
>
> Workers get wages, shareholders get profits. And in many companies,
> workers are also the owners. One year when I worked for a private
> company I made close to as much money from stock options as I was paid
> in wages.
That is the problem though, 20-30 years ago CEO's and board members
didn't get as much money as they do now. Effectively the owners and the
workers are so divided in big companies now, with the workers sharing
very little in the profits that the stock options for management and
dividends for shareholders take. You are the enemy of the worker with
your stock options, the shareholder is the enemy of the worker with thier
dividends. Who really did more for building the company? Who did the
Lion's Share of the work? Why does the rich ceo and his golden parachute
get the LIONS share? This wasn't as big a problem 20 - 30 years ago was
it?
http://www.pacificnet.net/~johnr/cgi/aesop1.cgi?sel&TheLionsShare
The Lion's Share
The Lion went once a-hunting along with the Fox, the Jackal,
and the Wolf. They hunted and they hunted till at last they
surprised a Stag, and soon took its life. Then came the question
how the spoil should be divided. "Quarter me this Stag," roared
the Lion; so the other animals skinned it and cut it into four
parts. Then the Lion took his stand in front of the carcass and
pronounced judgment: The first quarter is for me in my capacity
as King of Beasts; the second is mine as arbiter; another share
comes to me for my part in the chase; and as for the fourth
quarter, well, as for that, I should like to see which of you will
dare to lay a paw upon it."
"Humph," grumbled the Fox as he walked away with his tail
between his legs; but he spoke in a low growl.
"You may share the labours of the great,
but you will not share the spoil."
http://www.hotboards.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=pkarchive&id=
3994.8863888396941
By 1990, we had entered on the era of astonishing returns to top
corporate management. There was every reason to rid a company of the need
to pay dividends on the quarter. Rather earnings could be used to bolster
the size of the company or support stock option grants either of which
can vastly enrich top management. This was the top management era.
Corporate management became increasingly influential through the 1980s,
corporate Directors were increasingly beholden to management. When
management and directors are one and owner's [shareholder's] concerns are
set increasingly to the side, earning will be used increasingly to reward
management.
The questions you ask are interesting. Through the 1980s as corporate
size grew significantly there was a distincing between ownership and
management. Managers were the controllers, and as controllers they were
able to seat Directors who would be and were beholden to them. Find me a
Disney Director who is not a buddy of Michael Eisner. Roy Disney is gone
from the Board. So you have Directors who cater to managers, and to
management is where much of earnings my go rather than directly to
shareholders.
So the way I see it we have 3 entities, workers, managers, shareholders,
in the past they were probably more connected - but today in the age of
mega multicorps - they are further and further divided - with the workers
at the bottom - the shareholders a little higher up - and ken lay taking
the LIONS SHARE.
>> Family incomes - another deceptive number. When today households
>> routinely have two and sometimes three jobs to compare it fairly to
>> the single worker families of the 60's one would have to double the
>> income of the single worker family - wonder how it would compare
>> then.
>
> So the wife should stay home and dust and clean and look after the
> kids? Sounds like our Johnny.
I am glad mom stayed home and raised me instead of doing the 9-5 at work
all day - the gubbment and daycare is never gonna raise your kid as good
as you can - or do you believe the movie logans run is right when it
shows the little clone babies being raised by strangers?
> Yes, but not because foreign kids have pushed them out. We import
> foreign students into our graduate programs BECAUSE not enough US kids
> major in science to fill the graduate programs. The US kids COULD, but
> they don't. They study Women's History or "The Oppression of
> Minorities by Capitalism" or whatever, instead of science and math.
You have hit it on the head as it concerns my old city, it went through a
phase of hard science in the late 80's - then the politial science
lefties starting getting all these women studies programs and african
american programs etc etc and the president of the college encouraged
this because he was getting new money from the state for all this leftist
psuedo crap - and voila, a school that had lots of people - americans,
black, white, man, woman that were doing HARD science, suddenly turned
into this liberal arts crap and the only people willing to do the hard
science anymore was the imported chinese and indians who didn't learn all
that bullshit. While sole and mia and blu cantrell were taking the
oppression of womens courses and chatting up brittney at starbucks in
between thier shopping runs at the mall, little slant eye was spending
lots of time in the library reading SCIENCE journals. It made me want to
puke. All work and no play makes johnny go crazy though right? hehe
>> They can't compete without a stable family life and an even playing
>> field. The stable family has disappeared at the same rate as the
>> increase of dual worker families and single parent familes.
>
> But the studies I see say kids with mothers who work outside the home
> do BETTER than those with stay-at-home mom's. The "problem" is not
> the working mother but the absent father.
I would challenge your studies, from my own experience and observations
of my peers back at school, having 2 parents was a good thing - and
having at least ONE who was always there for you sure was rewarding.
Diversity is good up to a point, having 2 parents gives more diversity in
your upbringing. Having at least one parent RAISE you rather than
daycare, tv, radio, marketers made for a better citizen from what I saw -
the kids who had been brought up by daycare and tv instead of an actively
involved parent or parents who took a lot of time with that child just
weren't as good noble people in my observations.
> I am all for giving those who want more, the opportunity.
Sole and mia and blu cantrell wanted more shopping malls and latte, yet
you complain our hard science education has suffered, you can't have your
cake and eat it too right?
> Bring back the Draft?
Fuck that shit, what a way to die, being forced to kill people because
the leaders didn't want to work for peace and then getting blown up -
horrible.
>> We need to extend public education to 2 years of college or trade
>> school.
>
> For those who want it? Or just to keep those who disrupt high school
> classes
> around for 2 more years?
Haha, I probably would have dropped out of highschool if it wasn't for
the class clowns keeping me laughing. They made me want to go to school.
Education and learning was secondary. I watch oreilly, but dennis miller
and jon stewart too, 1 dry news guy to 2 funny news guys - draw your own
conclusion. If learning was boring and not fun, it seems to me the human
tendency is to follow the fun.
Most people are willing to pay more to be amused than to be educated.
~Robert C. Savage, Life Lessons
>> Not a good thing - no one to raise the children.
>
> Kids raised by 2 working parents are not the problem.
It is so rewarding to know someone is there for you besides tv, and
nintendo and daycare, it makes you want to give back yourself later on
that you were given so much - these people I see that had no stay at home
parent, I feel they are just inherently more self serving and selfish -
they just don't have that plains indian benevolence. More a ruthless
competitive ideaology. I just saw a special on national geographic,
TABOO: the exploitation of children, in some country - I think it was
Nepal - they sacrifice a child's happiness so she can serve as the living
god of the people, and in bolivia I think they had these 12 and 13 year
old kids working in the silver mines because they could make such good
money, the poor kid was in there crying - heck look at our own culture,
gary coleman or shirley temple - how much of thier formative childhoods
and happiness were robbed because they had to PERFORM so the show could
go on?
>> >>...It's time to put that puppy to bed once and for all. Not once
>> >>has a raise in the minumum wage decreased the availability of jobs
>
> Oh?
>
> http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=356
Right, Mises makes this point, minimum wages get in the way of the free
market. We have the PROBLEM I talked about earlier though - the LIONS
share - the ceo's and management, the shareholders, and then the workers.
Back in the day, probably more in alignment than today - the fox and the
lion and the jackal got closer division of the stag - but not today - Ken
lay is getting it all.
How bout doing some research for all us members of the group - take the
dow 30 of 1970 and the dow 30 of 2004 - what was the division of income
of the multicorps back then between worker, shareholder, and management -
compared to what it is today? I want to believe that workers got more of
the pie back then, and today they are getting less - but I could be
wrong. The population shock of the baby boom made more workers back then
than owners probably, that trend is reversing though, as the baby boomers
age, they are holding more shares and working less - so in the past where
there were more workers to shareholders - that is changing perhaps with
the population shock of the babyboomers.
> So you can keep your video movie longer than you promised, (screw
> those other
> people waiting for it) and the find a lawyer to get you some money for
> doing that?
> It figures.
Look that whole PARADIGM is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, we have the net now, most
homes in america have net access and could get cable boxes with on the
fly downloading - there is no need to waste trees and space distributing
entertainment in that form anymore, it is OLD HAT. It is just so these
big multicorps can pay MORE money to MANAGEMENT, same for the record
industry, the LIONS share does not go to the artist - but to the MIDDLE
MAN, his time has come and gone, if he won't leave willingly - he must be
FORCED out.
Johnny 5
> Hi,
>
> I second that. I'm not always a fan of Whoopie Goldberg, but I loved
it
> when she replied to
> a question with "I am not an African-American: I am an AMERICAN!.
>
I liked whoopie in some things, but I hated it when she came to star trek
- I didn't see any real good use for her character - I thought it was
more a political statement than a good addition to the star trek story,
in fact I hated HER on star trek, but if she made that comment my respect
for her has went up tremendously.
Its like star trek Voyager, I am all for the vision of that show, a unity
of different races and beings all working as ONE team, but it sure did
SUCK - HAHA! I loved chekhov and sulu and uhura - they weren't so
DOMINEERING like janeway - why does having to be a strong free woman have
to equate with disciplanarian BITCH? If she had just been a little more
mellow, like picard, I would have liked her more and liked the show more,
same with Sisko on deep spave 9, such a control freak and micro manager -
irritated the hell out of me, but that dax - man she was hot and usually
so mellow.
John F. Opie
wrote:
>What happened to Japan?
>
>During the 1970’s and 80’s it seemed like everyone was worried about
>Japan taking over the world. They were smart and efficient, and were
>employing TQM (remember that?) and the ideas of William E. Demming.
>They had an "Industrial Policy". The USA was going to be falling
>behind them and eventually they would control the world economy
>and even buy up most of the valuable property in the USA: Rockeller
>Center and Pebble Beach, lots of hotels and our companies, etc.
>
I remeber it was even called Stupid Japanese Money in the real estate
business; it has been replaced with Stupid German Money. :-)
>
>Then during the 1990’s everything changed. Japan fell into a decade
>long recession, sold off their US holding at a loss, the yen dropped
>to under a penny and the question was what happened to them and why.
>
>Georgists said it was because they directed their tax base away
>from land.
>
>Supply Siders said it was because their taxes were too high.
>
>Conservatives said Japan was an example of failed Keynesianism.
>
>http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.7119/pub_detail.asp
>
>Paul Krugman offered the interesting idea that it was demographics:
>too many old people.
>
>http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/japan.html
>
>
>But for the last several years Japan has pulled out of its recession
>and is on the rebound again.
>
>
>Why? Do they tax land again? Have they cut their tax rates? Have
>they stopped trying to deficit-spend their way to prosperity?
>Did they get younger?
>
Hi Jim -
I'll give you the short, true answer: structural break, readjustment,
refinance, retool, you've just passed go.
Took a while because they weren't willing to go through a short, sharp
recession, preferring for domestic reasons rather to go through an
extended period of the doldrums. Their decision for domestic political
reasons.
They will outperform Europe for the next 2-3 years at least, and may
even approach US growth rates if they can handle their debt problem
and get employment back up. Demographics suck big time, so there will
be limits to growth.
John
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen things you newbies wouldn't believe. Attack-morons aflame off
the shoulder of rec.arts.sf.written. I watched Cancel posts glitter in the
ether near the waikato.ac.nz gateway. All those moments will be lost in
time - like beers in the rain. Time to unsubscribe...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mason A. Clark
>"Jim Blair" <j...@wisc.edu> wrote in news:cdp9jv$jtn$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I second that. I'm not always a fan of Whoopie Goldberg, but I loved
>it
>> when she replied to
>> a question with "I am not an African-American: I am an AMERICAN!.
>>
>
>I liked whoopie in some things, but I hated it when she came to star trek
>- I didn't see any real good use for her character
For the record, I though Whoopy on Star Trek was great.