Is that Angie Coiro?
bubba
leansto...@democrat.com
> voicing the new anti-Meg Witless spots?
Hey Christine, have you tried to find out who is behind those spots?
The one you are probably referring to is www.leveltheplayingfield2010.com.
I'd donate if I knew how the money was being spent.
David Kaye
>Hey Christine, have you tried to find out who is behind those spots?
>The one you are probably referring to is www.leveltheplayingfield2010.com.
>I'd donate if I knew how the money was being spent.
Have you thought of contacting them?
Contact us at in...@LevelThePlayingField2010.com or (310) 203-1014
Ciccio
> voicing the new anti-Meg Witless spots?
It's hard for me to vote for anybody who favored Prop 8, so for now, I
am not considering Whitman. I am, however, a long time small business
owner, which is my livelihood and future. So, if I find that Whitman
or any other candidate, is truly going to be zealously helpful toward
small business, then I will find it difficult to ignore him/her.
I am definitely seriously considering Brown. He has political savvy
and experience. He did pretty good, all things considered, with
Oakland, especially for small businesses.
Obviously, if I voted by party, given the Democratic leader Obama's
anti-gay marriage stance, and my being a civil libertarian, I'd find
it hard to vote for Brown or any Democrat.
So, it may be, yet, another hold my nose and vote elections. But it's
still early...
Ciccio
Travis James
>
> I am definitely seriously considering Brown. He has political savvy
> and experience. He did pretty good, all things considered, with
> Oakland, especially for small businesses.
>
There is plenty of news about Brown and his support of AB32 and CARB as
it relates to the diesel particulate research by Tran. He will not be
business friendly.
And articles such as this.
David Kaye
>It's hard for me to vote for anybody who favored Prop 8, so for now, I
>am not considering Whitman. I am, however, a long time small business
>owner, which is my livelihood and future. So, if I find that Whitman
>or any other candidate, is truly going to be zealously helpful toward
>small business, then I will find it difficult to ignore him/her.
Whitman has no experience running a small business. Plus, her position
statement on the radio is just plain stupid. You can't both "create jobs" and
"cut back government spending" at the same time, especially when you talk
about "improving education" which takes money. She's simply hitting the big
three buzzwords that talkradio listeners want to hear.
Jobs are a zero-sum game. Jobs come from somewhere. The only way she can
create jobs is to steal them from somewhere else as she did with Ebay. She
stole them from stores, flea markets, and other places.
Ciccio
> Whitman has no experience running a small business.
Didn't ebay have only about 30 employees when she started managing
there? That said, I prefer a public official with small business
experience. I am, however, more concerned with their policies toward
small businesses than there experience owning a small business.
> Jobs are a zero-sum game. Jobs come from somewhere. The only way she can
> create jobs is to steal them from somewhere else as she did with Ebay. She
> stole them from stores, flea markets, and other places.
So, when an employee starts his own small business and then hires
others, how is that zero sum? At the very least, the new
entrepreneur's former job is vacated. I find your use of "stole"
rather curious. Also, it would really surprise me if the total number
of small merchants on ebay doesn't greatly exceed the total number of
small merchants at flea markets. Then there's the additional jobs
created by those additional merchants.
Most certainly, I haven't concluded whether or not Whitman would be a
good governor for small business. She will really need to shine on
that issue for me to vote for her, as I am uncomfortable with her as
to civil rights. Though, obviously, a governor has greater influence
upon the former than the latter.
Ciccio
Ciccio
> There is plenty of news about Brown and his support of AB32 and CARB as
> it relates to the diesel particulate research by Tran. He will not be
> business friendly.
Brown is about as bad as Arnold with that treehugger crap. Though,
what he did in Oakland vis a vis small business can't be ignored.
Ciccio
David Kaye
>So, when an employee starts his own small business and then hires
>others, how is that zero sum?
There is only a finite amount of business to go around. You're not going to
suddenly go out and buy more groceries because a new supermarket opened.
You're not going to go hire a plumber because a new plumber started a
business.
I do freelance computer tech support. When Geek Squad runs a new ad campaign,
my new business goes down. There is only a finite amount of business to go
around. I'm surprised that you don't realize that.
Craigslist is a perfect example. Every newspaper in the country will tell you
that their loss of classified ads (the bread and butter of daily newspapers)
is directly related to the success of Craigslist. There is only a finite
amount of business to go around.
Meg Whitman claims she can "create" jobs, but if she's successful at all it
will only be because she's taken them from elsewhere. The exception is the
"make work" jobs provided by the federal government. But there's a price for
those jobs, the federal deficit.
AngieC
Good ear - yep, that's me.
Ciccio
> There is only a finite amount of business to go around. You're not going to
> suddenly go out and buy more groceries because a new supermarket opened.
> You're not going to go hire a plumber because a new plumber started a
> business.
It depends as to what's available at the time. It seems your
perspective is skewed by being in SF which has only grown about 15% in
50 years. Compare that to San Jose or the Tri-Valley, for example.
> I do freelance computer tech support. When Geek Squad runs a new ad campaign,
> my new business goes down. There is only a finite amount of business to go
> around. I'm surprised that you don't realize that.
Within a particular market or locale. If a particular market or locale
is saturated then sure. If, however, it is a market or locale that is
beginning to take off, then there will be more business. I'm surprised
you don't realize that.
> Craigslist is a perfect example. Every newspaper in the country will tell you
> that their loss of classified ads (the bread and butter of daily newspapers)
> is directly related to the success of Craigslist. There is only a finite
> amount of business to go around.
Your use of the term finite is accurate, but misleading, as the finite
number frequently increases. 100 is a finite number, but 1,000, a
finite number, is 10 times greater.
> Meg Whitman claims she can "create" jobs, but if she's successful at all it
> will only be because she's taken them from elsewhere.
Not if the increase is due to market growth.
Ciccio
bubba
well travis diesel exhaust is not lung friendly..really...As far as
CARB is concerned...guess who appointed the head of CARB...the
boobengrabber..blame him if you don't like carb.Some people who rail
against CARB....omit that part...deliberately.
leansto...@democrat.com
> "leanstothel...@democrat.com" <leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> >Hey Christine, have you tried to find out who is behind those spots?
> >The one you are probably referring to iswww.leveltheplayingfield2010.com.
> >I'd donate if I knew how the money was being spent.
>
> Have you thought of contacting them?
>
It is a bit suspicious when they don't list the officers, mission
statement, etc. Phone or email would be a waste of time since there is
no way to vet the information. That is, it is better for the media to
investigate who is behind this organzation. Supposedly there are two
other similar independent expenditure committees.
http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1323903&view=late1
No list of contributors. Only the treasurer is listed in the
electronic filing.
W B Reese
wrote:
>There is only a finite amount of business to go around. You're not going to
>suddenly go out and buy more groceries because a new supermarket opened.
>You're not going to go hire a plumber because a new plumber started a
>business.
>
>I do freelance computer tech support. When Geek Squad runs a new ad campaign,
>my new business goes down. There is only a finite amount of business to go
>around. I'm surprised that you don't realize that.
>
>Meg Whitman claims she can "create" jobs, but if she's successful at all it
>will only be because she's taken them from elsewhere. The exception is the
>"make work" jobs provided by the federal government. But there's a price for
>those jobs, the federal deficit.
Your argument sounds "air-tight," I cannot fault you.
But,
Not too long ago before the recession, we had plenty of jobs. How was
this possible ?
Warren
Ciccio
> >Meg Whitman claims she can "create" jobs, but if she's successful at all it
> >will only be because she's taken them from elsewhere. The exception is the
> >"make work" jobs provided by the federal government. But there's a price for
> >those jobs, the federal deficit.
>
> Your argument sounds "air-tight," I cannot fault you.
Yep, a good example of a valid argument, that is not a sound argument
due to a faulty premises leading to a faulty conclusion.
> Not too long ago before the recession, we had plenty of jobs. How was
> this possible ?
David's argument/model only works if society were wrapped in a sterile
bubble and remained totally stagnant. David needs to familiarize
himself with the rudimentary, albeit complex, economic concept of
growth...for starters
Ciccio
leansto...@democrat.com
It was a false economy. Cheap money used to speculate on all sorts of
projects that were going nowhere fast. Hey, build it and they will
come. No need to do market surveys, product planning, etc.
Cheap money is never good. Not only do dubious business ventures get
funded, but at some point the banks get tired of everyone else making
money and they invest in the false economy as well. In Japan, where
the banks couldn't do that, they just lost interest in lending money
when the rates were low and played other banker games. As interest
rates start to rise in the US, you will see the banks start lending
again.
David Kaye
>But,
>
>Not too long ago before the recession, we had plenty of jobs. How was
>this possible ?
It was a house of cards. People were borrowing money to support those jobs.
People mortgaged their homes to hire people to add bedrooms, etc. People
borrowed money to finance business expansions, etc., but they used fake
equity. Remember when AOL took over Time Warner? It was all phony. AOL
wasn't richer than Time Warner; it was just valued that way by bankers.
Actually, building a house of cards at the federal government level is really
the only way we can get out of this long-term.
By deficit spending in a WPA-type program, we will accomplish two things:
First, we will create jobs.
Second, this spending will devalue the dollar against other currencies. By
doing this we will make American workers more attractive to companies across
the world. Thus, both office jobs such as telephone call centers and
industrial jobs such as manufacturing will come back to the U.S.
The trouble is very weird. The dollar is actually in better shape against
nearly all other currencies, so it's outperforming them. Until the dollar
falls we will not create more jobs, or shall I say, we will not be stealing
jobs from China and other places.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> It was a house of cards. People were borrowing money to support those jobs.
Which is just fine in a growth economy.
> People mortgaged their homes to hire people to add bedrooms, etc. People
> borrowed money to finance business expansions, etc., but they used fake
> equity.
The equity wasn't "fake" when they took loans against it. It became
"fake" equity when the value dropped as a result of the recession.
> Remember when AOL took over Time Warner? It was all phony. AOL
> wasn't richer than Time Warner; it was just valued that way by bankers.
Isn't all commerce based upon value agreed upon by buyer and seller?
> Actually, building a house of cards at the federal government level is really
> the only way we can get out of this long-term.
Or re-enter a growth economy.
> By deficit spending in a WPA-type program, we will accomplish two things:
> First, we will create jobs.
You know, I have no trouble "mortgaging" our children's future with
bonds. After all, they are the ones who will enjoy the benefits of the
improved infrastructure...not us.
> The trouble is very weird. The dollar is actually in better shape against
> nearly all other currencies, so it's outperforming them. Until the dollar
> falls we will not create more jobs, or shall I say, we will not be stealing
> jobs from China and other places.
Construction projects, by definition, create jobs in the US. Someday
soon, we are going to have to stop living in the ruins of past
generations and start building again.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
gvk2
>
> I am definitely seriously considering Brown. He has political savvy
> and experience. He did pretty good, all things considered, with
> Oakland, especially for small businesses.
>
While mayor of Oakland, Brown sat by while the City Council allowed
the most harmful legislation to be passed into law.
Because of his ties to the public employee unions he allowed a
provision to pass which will end up driving Oakland greatly deeper
into debt.
Only 1 citizen in 100 of the general public is aware of the deed.
(excluding the Oakland city employees who know).
So, what did Brown allow?
In 2004, the provision they allowed and supported...in one huge step
increased all the city pensions by....?
A unneeded but reasonable 10%? NO
A excessive and unrequired 20? NO
A huge, unneeded and unrequired 30%? NO
Instead, while the mayor covered his eyes, the future of Oakland's
general fund was put on the hook for a 35% "one step" gigantic raise
in pensions. (2.0% for each year worked, raised in one leap to 2.7%
for each year worked...retroactive for all previous years worked) (I
guess jumping to 2.2 or 2.4 or 2.5 was just too cheesy)
But wait, you have NOT heard the WORST of it.
Added to the huge 35% increase in pensions was the most unbelievable
clause you could even dream of.
You know all those folks with 25, 30 and 35 years with the city.
All working under a fair and generous pension. All having agreed and
planned their future with a pension much greater than the average
citizen.
Well all those folks...hold your hats...got the 35% jump in pension
made retroactive for the past 30 and more years.
All they needed to do, to gain this jackpot was to hold off on their
retirement for a few months.
So, that 35 year employee, from age 25 to only age 60, making a
common Oakland salary of $70,000 base, would have seen his/her
pension magically jump from $49,000 per year, to $66,150, by just
staying on the job a few more weeks.
That undeserved, bonus gift, will cost the city of Oakland, over the
expected 20 years of that employees retirement, $343,000.
Hundreds of employees got bonus gifts in the range of $200,000 to
$600,000 and higher. Countless others, as they retire will reap
similar bonus gifts as they retire each year.
NOT from the 35% hike in pensions from work since the date of the new
provision, but from counting all the retroactive years dragged under
the new rate.
NOTE, this is not for fire and police, this is for all the general
category Oakland city employees.
Imagine working for 35 years and being quite content with a pension
equaling 70% of your highest year salary.
Then being suddenly told you were now gonna get 94.5% for your
pension.
It was as though, the city, with Brown as mayor, was saying, sure
you got a generous pension, but now when you retire we're gonna give
you a new house to go along with your pension.
A bonus house to boot, because Oakland is so flush with cash.
Remember now, all these future pension shortfalls are going to come
straight out of the general fund programs for the poor, of which
Oakland has so many.
$250,000 to $400,000 bonus gifts to already well compensated city
employees, while the streets, parks, programs, all face a bleak
future.
Thank you Jerry Brown for the grand legacy you left in Oakland.
You said NOT a word to the press or media as this giveaway was put
into effect.
This will cost the city more than 700 million dollars over the next
couple decades.
THAT is what Jerry Brown has left in Oakland.
Isn't it wonderful that a person can go to work for Oakland out of
high school, at age 18, work 37 years until age 55 and then retire
with 100% of their highest years pay.
Living from age 55 to 85, collecting essentially full pay for 67
years, while only working 37 years.
And while working, are they under payed?
Look at the data base.
Parking control technician (meter maid)... $62,000 a year (base)
Police communications dispatcher... $78,0000 a year (72k base)
Don't overlook that Oakland's average benefit package equals 60% of
base pay. Thus the cost to keep the meter maid in place is over
$99,000 a year.
Actually that position is one of the few that covers its own cost
although out of the pockets of its own citizens.
Total compensation for each day worked 260 minus 24 off, is $423 a
day to pay that meter maid/man.
The lowest clerk you see behind the counter costs well over $300 per
day to keep there.
Here's another job "Traffic painter" (line strips and curb painting)
$71,609 base pay. With the benefits package it costs $490 per day to
keep that guy working. About $61 per hour.
Anyone with even a $5.00 calculator could have predicted the
consequences of such irresponsible action.
If you want to look up the wages of any public employee in the area,
go to the Mercury news data base linked under the drop down "news" at
the top.
Don't forget to add on the 53 to 68 percent that all public agencies
are adding to the base for health, pension, etc etc.
Example, the Golden Gate Bridge district is over 67% of base salary
for the typical employee.
That toll collector is getting over $18.70 per hour JUST in his
benefit package. He also gets over $28 per hour in his base pay.
The lowest pay at the Golden Gate bridge seems to be the woman in the
gift shop selling the post cards.
That retail clerks pay for selling gifts is $44,000 plus over $29,800
in benefits.
Daily cost to keep them behind the register for the 234 days they
actually work, about $316 per day.
Let me ask you, who works harder, the guy at the Safeway register or
the GGB gift shop clerk? Who is paid more, gets more benefits, and
more pension?
Compare that gift shop clerk to the typical pay at a similar SF
tourist gift shop.
The more amazing stats from the wonderful world of public employee
pay.
David Kaye
>The equity wasn't "fake" when they took loans against it. It became
>"fake" equity when the value dropped as a result of the recession.
But what triggered the recession? Loans were due (especially balloon
payments) and there wasn't enough real equity to pay them off. It's a house
of cards.
>
>Isn't all commerce based upon value agreed upon by buyer and seller?
When the books aren't cooked. AOL's value was based on that nebulous "future
growth potential", which is a bad thing. It should have been based on actual
revenue, actual infrastructure costs, and realistic expectations.
>
>Or re-enter a growth economy.
But there is no such thing as "growth". The jobs are either created by
deficit spending or they are taken away from other people. I nominate China.
Let's take the jobs away from them. Only one problem: They know that if the
dollar's value sinks the yuan will go too high and they'll lose jobs, so they
purposely peg the yuan to the dollar so that it can't go up in value.
>You know, I have no trouble "mortgaging" our children's future with
>bonds. After all, they are the ones who will enjoy the benefits of the
>improved infrastructure...not us.
My future was mortgaged with the cheap G.I. Bill loans given to World War II
vets, money that certainly stirred the economy in the years after the post
WWII recession, but at the price of rampant inflation in the 1970s and early
80s. So, I have no problem mortgaging the future generations the same way.
>Construction projects, by definition, create jobs in the US. Someday
>soon, we are going to have to stop living in the ruins of past
>generations and start building again.
Just no more "affordable housing" condos in San Francisco, please.
David Kaye
>While mayor of Oakland, Brown sat by while the City Council allowed
>the most harmful legislation to be passed into law.
His pledge to bring 10,000 housing units to downtown has stirred the economy
of Oakland in a way nobody else was able to do since Broadway was torn up in
the 1960s for BART.
gvk2
David, do you expect those 10,000 units of housing will generate
(minus expenses) over $700,000,000+++ in revenues to pay the extra
pension costs he gave away.
BTW, he never did bring in 10,000 units.
More like half that number.
In other words, those units will require all the normal services,
police, fire etc. Then they would have to generate about $7,000 per
year in addition to those expenses.
Or about an extra $600 each month per unit for the city, over and
above all the services they normally fund and use.
The problem so many have is that they look at the Christmas tree
ornaments all shiny and colorful, while avoiding looking at the boring
actuarial numbers involved in "gifting" the pensions 35%
retroactively.
Do you think Oakland made a sound financial decision for the future in
giving all its employees a 35% boost in retirement.....
Retroactively?
Tell me that was a sound decision.
Look, I have had 2 uncles and a grandfather, all Oakland firemen.
I know what the pensions were back in the 40's 50's and 60's and what
they became in the 70's 80's thru now.
They went through the roof.
My uncle who died at 90, collected in excess of $10,000 (inflation
adjusted 2010 dollars) per month for over 30 years.
It use to be that only police and fire got those huge pensions, but
now, as in Oakland's case they brought all employees into the
stratosphere.
In fact, if you leave college and begin working for Oakland at age
22...staying to the age of only 62, you can retire from Oakland with
108% of your highest years pay.
BTW, did you know the Oakland city work week is 37.5 hours, having
been reduced from 40. (that "normal" week is all in place prior to
any furloughs put in place in recent years)
But of course, go into any city office and see them pushed to the
limits to get all those perks. Yeah, right.
Caution is advised if you are between the elevator doors and the
workers at 4:29 pm.
They wait at the doors for the "school bell" to ring.
David Kaye
>David, do you expect those 10,000 units of housing will generate
>(minus expenses) over $700,000,000+++ in revenues to pay the extra
>pension costs he gave away.
>BTW, he never did bring in 10,000 units.
>More like half that number.
I believe what I see with my own eyes. I remember my youth when Oakland was a
thriving city. I then remember Broadway being torn up for BART and the
businesses the closed (just like Market Street and its BART construction).
Businesses and people fleeing downtown Oakland. The entire Fox Oakland
block was bought for $300,000 by a wife and husband. Property could be had
for a song.
And then the quake of 1989 hit. And downtown Oakland got even worse. It
became a ghost town. The city fathers decided that the downtown core needed
revamping, so they forced out longtime established businesses such as the
Stork Club. Rather than go out of business some of them (such as the Stork)
managed to relocate in the uptown area, along Auto Row, etc.
But Oakland still did not thrive.
It wasn't until Jerry Brown became mayor of Oakland and promised the 10,000
homes and called in a lot of his political chips that things began to turn
around. Now, Oakland is fast becoming THE place to be. Major money is now
being invested there. People actually live around there and actually go out
to places such as the Uptown, the Fox and Paramount, Cafe Van Kleef, and to
the various restaurants.
This stuff simply wasn't happening in the 3 decades before Jerry Brown became
mayor.
As to whether this commerce can subsidize budget shortfalls, I'm not sure.
When an economic engine gets rolling it can become very lucrative indeed. But
I have no idea whether the pension plan was a good idea or not.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> When the books aren't cooked. AOL's value was based on that nebulous "future
> growth potential", which is a bad thing. It should have been based on actual
> revenue, actual infrastructure costs, and realistic expectations.
Two words: due diligence. Any buyer who does little more than kick the
tires deserves what he gets.
> But there is no such thing as "growth". The jobs are either created by
> deficit spending or they are taken away from other people.
You have been spouting this nonsense for years. The entire universe is
based upon growth. When I moved to San Jose with my family, the city was
an agricultural town of about 90,000 people. The whole south bay was
sleepy and squeaking by. Fast forward to the present. Even amidst the
recession, the area supports an order of magnitude more people than it
did back then. If that isn't growth, what is it?
> I nominate China.
> Let's take the jobs away from them. Only one problem: They know that if the
> dollar's value sinks the yuan will go too high and they'll lose jobs, so they
> purposely peg the yuan to the dollar so that it can't go up in value.
How about adding jobs, doing things this country has neglected for so
many years? We don't need the Chinese for that.
> My future was mortgaged with the cheap G.I. Bill loans given to World War II
> vets, money that certainly stirred the economy in the years after the post
> WWII recession, but at the price of rampant inflation in the 1970s and early
> 80s. So, I have no problem mortgaging the future generations the same way.
Neither of us is hurting very much because of all, are we?
> Just no more "affordable housing" condos in San Francisco, please.
How about roads we can drive on? Instead of pie-in-the-sky trains that
go from Nowhere to Hell and back, how about fixing up our main streets
and freeways so we can get somewhere for real? As soon as we can get off
this "transit is for everyone" nonsense, maybe we can build something
the public can use...like decent roads. Is that so much to ask?
David Kaye
>You have been spouting this nonsense for years.
You seemed to finally agree with this nonsense some months back when we talked
about the house of cards that was the housing boom.
>The entire universe is
>based upon growth.
I've said before that the earth is like a snow globe. It's a self-contained
unit with lots of flecks of snow (money). They float here and there and
collect in various places, but the wealth itself never changes.
It's done with mirrors, what I call "time slicing" where X amount of money
appears to be in several places at once. Your bank passbook says it's in your
savings account, but in the meanwhile it's been lent out to finance someone's
home in Utah, and then overnight when the banks are closed, it's part of a
"sweep" that is lent out in Asia before the banks here open the next day. The
exact same money may show up on many balance sheets representing different
investments, but it's really smoke and mirrors.
You present your withdrawal slip from your savings account and the bank gives
you the money. Fine, but if you present a withdrawal slip for "too much"
money, let's say, $100,000 cash, the bank may stall and quote you a provision
giving them 15 days to comply. Those measures are built into the system to
cover the fact that the money isn't really there, and they need time to get
it.
This was the big problem that nearly collapsed Washington Mutual. Something
like $19 billion was withdrawn from WaMu in a matter of a few days. Had Chase
not stepped in and bought WaMu and quelled the fears, a lot of savings account
holders would have left empty-handed because there simply wasn't enough money
to go around (and FDIC insurance fund isn't enough to cover it.) Again,
that's because the money is only there in the accounting system; it's not
really there in the flesh. It's being moved around constantly.
>When I moved to San Jose with my family, the city was
>an agricultural town of about 90,000 people. The whole south bay was
>sleepy and squeaking by. Fast forward to the present. Even amidst the
>recession, the area supports an order of magnitude more people than it
>did back then. If that isn't growth, what is it?
True there is population growth. And also as I've said before, there are two
sources of wealth: mining natural resources from the ground (wealth that was
really there all along, but not accessible to us) and energy from the sun.
That's it.
While the Santa Clara Valley is rich, that money came from elsewhere. Family
farms went out of business, including my forebearers' own Alameda Vegetable &
Produce Company at the old Bell Ranch. And since we live in a world economy,
people in other places have suffered to create the riches of the Santa Clara
Valley. Labor and natural resources have been exploited elsewhere. More
people on earth live without clean water today than at any other time in
history. There's a reason for this.
>How about adding jobs, doing things this country has neglected for so
>many years? We don't need the Chinese for that.
To do that requies spending, federal spending. I'm all in favor of that. It
will, as I said, provide jobs and bring the dollar down to make our labor more
competitive.
>
>Neither of us is hurting very much because of all, are we?
No, once again, I have no problem with the federal government's deficit
spending. Not in the least. We didn't suffer from inflation. We suffer from
deflation, as is happening now. We desperately need inflation.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> You seemed to finally agree with this nonsense some months back when we
> talked
> about the house of cards that was the housing boom.
Given what my sister just paid for a house in Half Moon Bay, I would say
that the "bust" might just be a bit overrated.
> While the Santa Clara Valley is rich, that money came from elsewhere. Family
> farms went out of business, including my forebearers' own Alameda Vegetable &
> Produce Company at the old Bell Ranch. And since we live in a world economy,
> people in other places have suffered to create the riches of the Santa Clara
> Valley. Labor and natural resources have been exploited elsewhere. More
> people on earth live without clean water today than at any other time in
> history. There's a reason for this.
Unless you can specifically identify those who suffered as a result of
Silicon Valley's success and can show irrefutable (or at least
compelling) evidence to support it, I would have to dismiss that remark
as speculation. You're entitled to it, of course, but I certainly don't
have to buy it.
Alan
>True there is population growth. And also as I've said before, there are two
>sources of wealth: mining natural resources from the ground (wealth that was
>really there all along, but not accessible to us) and energy from the sun.
>That's it.
And, that's not it. When people do something that makes the existing resources
more valuable, that adds wealth.
>While the Santa Clara Valley is rich, that money came from elsewhere. Family
>farms went out of business, including my forebearers' own Alameda Vegetable &
>Produce Company at the old Bell Ranch. And since we live in a world economy,
>people in other places have suffered to create the riches of the Santa Clara
>Valley. Labor and natural resources have been exploited elsewhere. More
>people on earth live without clean water today than at any other time in
>history. There's a reason for this.
However, the reasons have nothing at all to do with the wealth or growth in
the Bay Area.
If the population increases in areas where the areas natural water supply
is not able to support the existing population with clean water, there will
be increasing numbers of people without clean water. This is true even if
the global percentage of total population with clean water *increases*.
(John Higdon asked):
>>How about adding jobs, doing things this country has neglected for so
>>many years? We don't need the Chinese for that.
>
>To do that requies spending, federal spending. I'm all in favor of that. It
>will, as I said, provide jobs and bring the dollar down to make our labor more
>competitive.
Federal spending provides jobs? Doing what -- working for the government?
Doesn't pass the sniff test.
Making things here instead of overseas would provide jobs.
Bringing the dollar down to make us more competitive? You must be kidding
--- this would just pump up the apparent price of energy and everything else
we manufacture, transport, or import. We still wouldn't be able to afford
things, and our standard of living would go down.
>>Neither of us is hurting very much because of all, are we?
>
>No, once again, I have no problem with the federal government's deficit
>spending. Not in the least. We didn't suffer from inflation. We suffer from
>deflation, as is happening now. We desperately need inflation.
When you retire (and you will, unless you die first), you might have different
thoughts about inflation. A few years of watching your savings dwindle may be
enough for you to see the light.
We don't have deflation. Last I checked, the price of pretty much everything
was still going up.
Alan
David Kaye
> Federal spending provides jobs? Doing what -- working for the government?
>Doesn't pass the sniff test.
Sure it does. The WPA began to lift us out of the Depression and World War II
spending fully lifted us out. There were so many jobs during WWII that
uneducated people from the South were brought here (often their transportation
paid for by the government) and they were trained to do all kinds of jobs.
> Bringing the dollar down to make us more competitive? You must be kidding
Not at all. Why do you think China keeps its yuan pegged to the dollar when
it should be riding at about twice its present value? Because they're trying
to keep Chinese labor competitive on the world market. When companies find
labor cheap in the U.S. compared with other countries you can BET they'll
bring the jobs back here.
It's obvious that you've never owned or managed a business. I have owned and
managed several businesses, hired and fired employees, etc. I think I know a
little about labor costs, outsourcing, etc.
David Kaye
> We don't have deflation. Last I checked, the price of pretty much everything
>was still going up.
Wages are going down. Home prices are going down. Car prices are going down.
Gasoline is just $2.79 a gallon as of this evening -- adjusted for inflation
this is probably the lowest price gasoline has been since the early 1960s. If
we had kept on the inflation trajectory of the 1970s when gasoline was $1.50 a
gallon, we'd be paying about $7.50 a gallon today, not $2.79.
True, prices on some things have gone up. But on the big ticket items: labor,
homes, and cars, the trend has been downward.
Ciccio
> Gasoline is just $2.79 a gallon as of this evening -- adjusted for inflation
> this is probably the lowest price gasoline has been since the early 1960s. If
> we had kept on the inflation trajectory of the 1970s when gasoline was $1.50 a
> gallon, we'd be paying about $7.50 a gallon today, not $2.79.
Maybe, at most, a buck a gallon in 1979. Adjusting for inflation, it
would put about just where it's at.
Ciccio
gvk2
But
> I have no idea whether the pension plan was a good idea or not.
What? They sky rocket pensions by 35% in one gigantic leap...They
make those huge boosts retroactive for all prior years
served...effectively giving many long time employees a unexpected
gift, valued from $200,000 to $600,000 per worker, and YOU say you "no
idea whether (it) was a good idea or not"
I appears you often don't give 20 seconds thought to what you are
writing.