OT - Future jobs may not support a decent living standand
Too_Many_Tools
Your thoughts?
TMT
Future jobs won’t support decent living standard: Report
The Lookout - Fri Apr 1st, 2011 1:09 PM EDT
It's most welcome news that job growth seems to be picking up again --
even if we'll need a whole lot more of it to get back to where we were
before the Great Recession.
Still, as we've reported , there's growing evidence that the new jobs,
many of which are in sectors like retail, food services, and health
care, simply aren't as good--in terms of wages, hours, and seniority--
as the ones they're replacing. And a report released today only adds
to the concern.
The study , commissioned by the nonprofit group Wider Opportunities
for Women, looks at how much income it takes to support a basic
standard of living for an American family--and finds that many of the
jobs of the future won't pay enough to provide that.
To calculate this "economic security" income, the study's authors
certainly didn't assume a lavish lifestyle. They considered basic
needs--housing, food, utilities, health care, child-care, and
transportation--plus the cost of modest saving for retirement and a
small surplus for emergencies. (At at a time when economic "shocks"
are increasingly common , that's an essential part of financial
security.) They don't factor in some things many of us take for
granted, like entertainment or eating out.
The result? To achieve economic security, a single parent with two
children needs an income of just over $30,000 a year--nearly twice the
federal minimum wage--while a two-income household needs almost
$68,000.
The study then finds that, according to Labor Department projections,
fewer than 13 percent of jobs to be created by 2018 will meet the
economic security threshold for a single parent with two kids. Forty-
three percent of those jobs will meet the threshold for a two-income
household.
In other words, most of the jobs of the future aren't likely to pay
enough to offer the kind of stable, middle-class existence that for
much of the 20th century was seen as the American birthright.
"The American Dream of working hard to support your family is being re-
written by the growth of low-paying industries and rising expenses,"
said Joan Kuriansky, WOW's executive director.
Indeed, this seems to be the new reality of the American economic
landscape. Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution,
noted in a statement on the government's jobs numbers that real
earnings fell 1.1 percent between October and February--a development
he attributed to the still-high unemployment rate, which is eroding
workers' bargaining power.
F. George McDuffee
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A disturbing trend...
>
>Your thoughts?
>
>TMT
>
>
>Future jobs won=92t support decent living standard: Report
>The Lookout - Fri Apr 1st, 2011 1:09 PM EDT
>
>
>It's most welcome news that job growth seems to be picking up again --
>even if we'll need a whole lot more of it to get back to where we were
>before the Great Recession.
<snip>
===========
A major portion of the problem is that a large fraction of
the new jobs are in government. While governmental jobs can
be important/vital, these do not actually "add value," as
many manufacturing and industrial jobs do. Many of the
remaining "new" private sector jobs are in the service
sectors with nominal/minimal "value added."
The management of the major transnational corporations are
not stupid, and realize that this is a death spiral in that
if the vast majority of people are making subsistence wages,
or have no jobs at all, they will have no one to sell their
crappy products to. This is true, but in the long-term. In
today's ultra short term business environment, where "take
the money and run" is the rule, the feeling is that it is in
management's self interest to cut *THEIR* employees'
wages/benefits as quickly and deeply as possible, maximize
the profits and stock price, get the big bonuses, and retire
young.
For more on this point see
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576219073867182108.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
<snip>
If you want to understand better why so many states—from New
York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink
of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in
America there are nearly twice as many people working for
the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing
(11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the
situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in
manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the
government.
It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than
work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry,
manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved
decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers.
<snip>
While this article makes several good points, one major
lapse is the failure to examine the effects from a
macroeconomic or aggregate basis of their suggestions.
Specifically, if government shrinks or out sources, where
are the displaced workers going to find jobs? It can be
argued that in the case of outsourcing, they will find
employment with the new private contractors, but this is
simply wage cutting, with adverse impact on general economic
activity.
<snip>
Don't expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys
of college graduates are finding that more and more of our
top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in
recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and
because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued
in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds
aren't willing to take career risks, we have a real problem
on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of
Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor
Vehicles.
<snip>
{so where should they [want to] work? Unpaid interns?--
Unka' George}
for more on this point see
http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/if-germany-can-grow-exports-why-cant-us-2011-04-01/79F59F66-0030-4860-844E-71EC8D594E98
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7075698/China-to-lead-world-scientific-research-by-2020.html
http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/skills-gap-college-education-businesses-economy-1132/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/01/us-usa-economy-jobs-snap-idUSTRE7303SE20110401
-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Ed Huntress
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:1abdp6hqto37d0mqa...@4ax.com...
> York to Wisconsin to California-are teetering on the brink
> of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in
> America there are nearly twice as many people working for
> the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing
> (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the
> situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in
> manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the
> government.
But this leads to a misleading idea of what's going on. I'm going to skip
the occupational breakdowns, because BLS and Census have a different basis
for reporting categories and I'm too tired to sort it out now, but here's a
key point: The percentage of the population that works for the government --
federal, state, and local, including teachers and others in education --
keeps going down, since around 1990 or thereabouts.
1990: 7.378%
2000: 7.367%
2010: 7.323%
(from BLS "Historical B Tables,"
http://www.bls.gov/data/#historical-tables )
The current (April 1) employment report indicates that government employment
continues to fall (loss of over 400,000 local government jobs since 2008; a
drop in all government categories for the past three months).
So, when you look at manufacturing, and the fact that our value of
manufacturing shipments continues to grow (it's now about twice what it was
in 1986), what does the employment figure tell us? Primarily, that the
cumulative productivity improvements keep reducing the number of employees
per dollar of goods produced.
I've been doing reports on this since around 1980, and the story hasn't
changed much in all those years: Manufacturing continues to grow in terms of
output, while it declines as a PERCENTAGE of our economy. It's not that
manufacturing is declining but rather that the rest of the economy is
growing faster.
And employment in manufacturing continues to decline, in the long term,
because productivity has steadily improved (well, not so steadily -- it's
been fits and starts for decades, but the overall situation is compounded
improvements).
This is about what one would expect. It was predicted 40, even 50 years ago
that it would work out about like this. It shouldn't be depressing. It's the
inevitable result of productivity improvements and the maturation of
manufacturing in a sophisticated economy.
Which leads to the question of where the future jobs will come from. This
question always gives me agita, but the economy always surprises me by
coming through.
>
> It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than
> work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry,
> manufacturing, mining and utilities combined.
> We have moved
> decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers.
> <snip>
Mostly, we've just gotten a lot more efficient at making things. Look at the
trends in dollar values of manufacturing outputs from the BEA or your
favorite data source.
>
> While this article makes several good points, one major
> lapse is the failure to examine the effects from a
> macroeconomic or aggregate basis of their suggestions.
> Specifically, if government shrinks or out sources, where
> are the displaced workers going to find jobs? It can be
> argued that in the case of outsourcing, they will find
> employment with the new private contractors, but this is
> simply wage cutting, with adverse impact on general economic
> activity.
What "new private contractors"? Take a look at a photo of an automotive
parts plant in 1952, with rows of operators manning engine lathes, turning
out gear shafts or whatever. Then take a look at the floor of a parts
producer in 2011. See that guy down there with the clipboard?...
> <snip>
> Don't expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys
> of college graduates are finding that more and more of our
> top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in
> recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and
> because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued
> in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds
> aren't willing to take career risks, we have a real problem
> on our hands.
As the father of a 23-year-old, I can assure you that the top minds want to
work for hedge funds. His best friend's brother, age 25, just made more in
his BONUS this past year than I ever made in four years of working. d8-)
dca...@krl.org
> A disturbing trend...
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> TMT
You first.
Dan
John R. Carroll
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 18:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
> <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> A disturbing trend...
>>
>> Your thoughts?
>>
>> TMT
>>
>>
>> Future jobs won=92t support decent living standard: Report
>> The Lookout - Fri Apr 1st, 2011 1:09 PM EDT
>>
>>
>> It's most welcome news that job growth seems to be picking up again
>> -- even if we'll need a whole lot more of it to get back to where we
>> were before the Great Recession.
> <snip>
> ===========
> A major portion of the problem is that a large fraction of
> the new jobs are in government. While governmental jobs can
> be important/vital, these do not actually "add value," as
> many manufacturing and industrial jobs do. Many of the
> remaining "new" private sector jobs are in the service
> sectors with nominal/minimal "value added."
George, the private sector has created a million and a half non farm jobs in
the last year.
Four hundred thoudand of those have been in the last two months alone.
<snip>
> If you want to understand better why so many states-from New
> York to Wisconsin to California-are teetering on the brink
> of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in
> America there are nearly twice as many people working for
> the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing
> (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the
> situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in
> manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the
> government.
This is extremely deceptive George but I see Ed has addressed it in his post
so I won't bother with employment in manufacturing.
Look this over if you want to see actual data and trends for LAC-5. There is
other data for comparison to areas around the country.
Thinking that California is "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy" is just
nutty.
A deficit of twenty or thirty billion dollars in a 1.4 trillion dollar
economy is trivial.
<snip>
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 18:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
> <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOPS.
Forgot the link.
http://www.laedc.org/reports/Manufacturing_2011.pdf
--
John R. Carroll
Hawke
It's also important to understand how much conservative/right wing
propaganda is coming as us these days. It's gotten so it is really
difficult to really know what's true. But one clue has to do with the
basic philosophy of the conservatives. A fundamental tenet of
conservatism is that what's really important in the country is business.
Not people, but business, and it's been that way for over 100 years.
When they get control all benefits from the government go to business
and away from people. That's what is happening right now. All the
republican governors are giving aid to business, as in tax cuts, and are
cutting the bargaining rights, the benefits, and the jobs themselves for
ordinary Americans. But that is completely in line with conservative
thinking. Help the businesses, cut spending on the people.
The same philosophy comes through with jobs. Future jobs are not going
to provide a decent standard of living. Okay, but does that mean the
corporations that these jobs come from are also going to generate less
money? Because if they are making as much or more profits than before
then why are the workers getting jobs that pay such low wages?
It's really simple. The future jobs are not going to pay enough for
decent livings because the business is keeping the money for itself.
Business is not going to make less. In fact business is making more. At
the rate American business is making profits right now it's estimated it
will make more than a trillion and a half dollars this year. So the
money is coming in. It's just not going out to the workers.
In 2010 the pay of American CEOs increased 27%. The pay for average
workers was basically flat, around 2%. This is it in a nutshell. The
money is still being made. It's simply a question of who gets it. To
conservatives the workers deserve only the minimum they need to live and
management/ownership deserves everything else.
So it really is simple and not new in any way. Conservatives want all
the money and don't want to share any of it with the workers. With all
conservatives in positions of power in the country is it any wonder why
this is happening? The people put the conservatives in office. Now they
see how they do things I wonder if they see their mistake yet? I know
some of them have, like the police and firemen, who are abandoning the
republicans in droves.
Hawke
Jon Elson
> A disturbing trend...
>
> Your thoughts?
We got used, in the 60's, to being the manufacturer for the entire world,
and it was great, while it lasted. But, there are 7 billion people in the
world, and many countries now have the infrastructure to also be
manufacturers. So, those days when you could be lazy and inefficient and
STILL get paid lots of money to make stuff are over. We are now competing
on a much more level field with the rest of the world. I think the trend
is that the field is going to get more level, and the people who are
cheating the system, like China, will be steadily pressured to stop doing
that. (We'd have already taken care of this except that they own the US
Treasury.) Now, we have to be better than anybody else, or we won't be
able to sell stuff. So, you have to stay ahead, and not expect that what
you sold last year will still have a market next year.
The problem is we got so used to the old scheme, where WE were the great
exporter, and could do no wrong, that now it is going to be a HUGE
adjustment. Capital flows kind of like the tide, and it CAN'T all keep
going the same way forever. We used to have a very disproportionate amount
of the world's capital, now China has that, but again, it won't last
indefinitely.
Jon
Jon Elson
> The result? To achieve economic security, a single parent with two
> children needs an income of just over $30,000 a year--nearly twice the
> federal minimum wage--while a two-income household needs almost
> $68,000.
$30K will barely support a single person, no less a parent with 2 kids!
Jon
Gunner Asch
<nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
>
>Thinking that California is "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy" is just
>nutty.
>A deficit of twenty or thirty billion dollars in a 1.4 trillion dollar
>economy is trivial.
The problem is that the deficit not 20-30 billion dollars. If you dont
know this..you are stupid.
Or you are a liar of the worst sort.
Which is it?
Gunner
http://www.koreaherald.com/opinion/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20110327000304
--
"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein
Yooper
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 06:01:33 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
> <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
>
>
>>Thinking that California is "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy" is
>>just nutty.
>>A deficit of twenty or thirty billion dollars in a 1.4 trillion dollar
>>economy is trivial.
>
>
> The problem is that the deficit not 20-30 billion dollars. If you dont
> know this..you are stupid.
>
> Or you are a liar of the worst sort.
>
> Which is it?
>
> Gunner
>
>
> http://www.koreaherald.com/opinion/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20110327000304
I read you cite. It says this: "Meanwhile, the state lurches from
fiscal tragedy to fiscal farce. Governor Jerry Brown (who was also
Governor in the 1970s) inherits a budget deficit of $26 billion."
John R. Carroll
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 06:01:33 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
> <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thinking that California is "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy"
>> is just nutty.
>> A deficit of twenty or thirty billion dollars in a 1.4 trillion
>> dollar economy is trivial.
>
>
> The problem is that the deficit not 20-30 billion dollars.
26.7 billion is between 20 and 30 billion.
Jerry Brown has proposed $27.6 billion in solutions to erase California's
budget deficit through June 30, 2012 and provide a $1 billion reserve.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/04/3377894/erase-californias-budget-deficit.html#ixzz1IPNlQimH>If you dont> know this..you are stupid.>> Or you are a liar of the worst sort.>> Which is it?Neither.You on the other hand have repeatedly proven yourself both.--John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
Read the cite?
Gunner?
LOL
Now that really is funny.
--
John R. Carroll
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Try it on $19k a year.
Which is what I made last year.
Gunner, California
Gunner Asch
And its what today?
Hummm????
Gunner
Gunner Asch
Odd that you "smart guys" missed the rest of the statement....
Meanwhile, the state lurches from fiscal tragedy to fiscal farce.
Governor Jerry Brown (who was also Governor in the 1970s) inherits a
budget deficit of $26 billion.
" And that’s before the coming deluge from generous public employee
pensions and health costs."
Some of you out of staters may not know the score about California..but
Jonboi should. Even he isnt THAT stupid....
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06
California's $500-billion pension time bomb
The staggering amount of unfunded debt stands to crowd out funding for
many popular programs. Reform will take something sadly lacking in the
Legislature: political courage.
April 06, 2010|By David Crane
The state of California's real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more
than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.
That's the finding from a study released Monday by Stanford University's
public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning
findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.
To put that number in perspective, it's almost seven times greater than
all the outstanding voter-approved state general obligation bonds in
California.
Why should Californians care? Because this year's unfunded pension
liability is next year's budget cut to important programs. For a glimpse
of California's budgetary future, look no further than the $5.5 billion
diverted this year from higher education, transit, parks and other
programs in order to pay just a tiny bit toward current unfunded pension
and healthcare promises. That figure is set to triple within 10 years
and -- absent reform -- to continue to grow, crowding out funding for
many programs vital to the overwhelming majority of Californians.
How did we get here? The answer is simple: For decades -- and without
voter consent -- state leaders have been issuing billions of dollars of
debt in the form of unfunded pension and healthcare promises, then
gaming accounting rules in order to understate the size of those
promises.
As we saw during the recent financial crisis, hiding debt is not a new
phenomenon. Indeed, General Motors did something similar to obscure the
true cost of its retirement promises. Through aggressive accounting, for
a while it, too, got away with making pension contributions that were a
fraction of what it really needed to make, thereby reporting better
earnings than was truly the case.
But eventually the pension promises come due, and for GM, that meant
having to add extra costs to its cars, making its prices less attractive
to consumers and contributing to its eventual bankruptcy.
In California's case, past pension underfunding means reduced funding of
current programs. This explains why pension costs rose 2,000% from 1999
to 2009, while state funding for higher education declined over the same
period.
And then of course is the medical costs.....
http://www.emaxhealth.com/124/19802.html
California Unfunded Liability For Retiree Health Care At Least $118B
(retireee costs only over 30 yrs)...not including unfunded Illegal alien
medical costs of 11.6 Billion per year....
This leaves out the prison system costs.....
http://prisonmovement.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/california-must-rein-in-its-prison-guard-costs/
And so on and so forth.
While its understandable that out of staters may not be aware of just
how fucked California really is..but our Hero Johnboi...should know. He
claims to be smart and :informed:
Gunner
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>As the father of a 23-year-old, I can assure you that the top minds want to
>work for hedge funds. His best friend's brother, age 25, just made more in
>his BONUS this past year than I ever made in four years of working. d8-)
FYI
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3adcb3e6-5c9c-11e0-ab7c-00144feab49a.html
<snip>
The “overpaid” fund management industry is destroying
$1,300bn of value annually, according to an unpublished
draft report conducted by IBM.
The document, seen by FTfm, claims the industry is “paid too
much for the value it delivers” and that “destroying value
for clients and shareholders is unsustainable”.
<snip>
Ed Huntress
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 03:03:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>>As the father of a 23-year-old, I can assure you that the top minds want
>>to
>>work for hedge funds. His best friend's brother, age 25, just made more in
>>his BONUS this past year than I ever made in four years of working. d8-)
> <snip>
> FYI
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3adcb3e6-5c9c-11e0-ab7c-00144feab49a.html
> <snip>
> The "overpaid" fund management industry is destroying
> $1,300bn of value annually, according to an unpublished
> draft report conducted by IBM.
>
> The document, seen by FTfm, claims the industry is "paid too
> much for the value it delivers" and that "destroying value
> for clients and shareholders is unsustainable".
> <snip>
>
> -- Unka George (George McDuffee)
Ha! The fund management industry doesn't "destroy" value. They just put it
in their own pockets instead of the clients'. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Tom Gardner
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:baafp69bem3mqkk3p...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 14:28:40 -0500, Jon Elson
> <el...@pico-systems.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The result? To achieve economic security, a single parent with two
>>> children needs an income of just over $30,000 a year--nearly twice
>>> the
>>> federal minimum wage--while a two-income household needs almost
>>> $68,000.
>>$30K will barely support a single person, no less a parent with 2
>>kids!
>>
>>Jon
>
> Try it on $19k a year.
>
> Which is what I made last year.
>
> Gunner, California
>
A friend of mine that had a mfg. business in CA for over 40 years has
now moved out of the state. He said it was senseless not to move.
How many companies have came to the same conclusion? And, he's very
liberal, we spar all the time.
John R. Carroll
In 2004 John Boggle came out and said that the removal of over $600 Bn per
year from the real economy by the financial services wasn't sustainable in
the long run.
I wonder what he'd say about $1.3 Trillion?
LOL
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:PeGdncoPMuSHIQXQ...@giganews.com...
No problem. Just double or triple your leverage. You can make a 30%
return -- for a while. d8-)
(Thanks, Ronnie Reagan and all the little Reaganites, for opening this
wonderful pathway to wealth acquisition...)
--
Ed Huntress
Paul K. Dickman
"John R. Carroll" <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:PeGdncoPMuSHIQXQ...@giganews.com...
When they told us we were moving to a service based economy, they did not
mean that we would all get jobs at Wally's Filling Station.
What they really meant to say, is that the financial services industry would
make all the money, but that the rest of us might eke out a few samolians
cleaning their pools.
Paul K. Dickman
Gunner Asch
If I had any reserves in the bank..Id consider moving to Texas or one of
the other "busy" states.
Be free from Liberal PolyTicks, high taxes, etc etc etc...
But I dont. And the homestead isnt worth a cent to me if I sell it...if
it could be sold The housing market here locally..is not good. And
there is a lien on it from the surgery 2 yrs ago. So they will get all
the money.
the only way I could generate any money is to sell off all my machines,
guns etc etc..and no one around here has any spare cash.
So for all intents and purposes..Im trapped here.
Better to be here with my toys and a little work..then somewhere else
with no toys and looking for work. I think. maybe. Kinda sorta
Im getting too old and tired to run off like I used to. Hell..Ive lived
in 39 states and California twice.
Shrug...just keep plugging away until the Great Cull <G>
Gunner
Ignoramus25197
this to be an unfortunate, but inevitable development, due to the
economic effects of computerization.
People below IQ of a certain level will see themselves replaced by
computers, and that IQ level will rise inexorably, pushing more and
more people to the sidelines.
While I try my best to be on the better side of this process, I am
highly disturbed by it and do not see it as a positive for the human
race.
i
Ed Huntress
"Ignoramus25197" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.25197.invalid> wrote in message
news:D_6dnXJz3aa0fQXQ...@giganews.com...
Until roughly the mid-'70s, the solution was incorporated into
welfare-state/social-democracy ideas. The expectation was that the return on
capital, and interest rates, would decline; capital accumulation would
expand to keep building output; and the work week would keep getting
shorter. The output per worker actually would increase slightly faster than
the loss of hours of work. The underlying fact was that productive output
kept climbing as automation became more effective. Then the whole question
became one of distribution. The numbers, in a crude way, worked out to
support this conclusion.
Instead, capital kept the money and increased the divide between the haves
and the have-nots. And here we are.
--
Ed Huntress
Ignoramus25197
It is not at all surprising that people who are pushed to the
sidelines, do not get much out of this situation.
i
Ed Huntress
"Ignoramus25197" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.25197.invalid> wrote in message
For a little while, I was hoping that the Tea Partiers would wise up to the
fact that they're being had, and add some kind of equity in earnings
pressure to their small-government shtick. So far they haven't caught on,
but you never know how a populist movement is going to morph.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Ignoramus25197" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.25197.invalid> wrote in message
Here's something you ought to find interesting -- Unka' George and John will
appreciate it, too:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood
Scroll down through a few posts.
--
Ed Huntress
Ignoramus25197
Tea Party is the Koch brothers' party, they sing the song in
accordance with who is financing them. I would not expect them to
change much.
i
Gunner Asch
So what song does the Leftwing sing? The Soros National Anthem?
Ignoramus25197
Gunner, I would be interested in a decent summary of how much is Soros
spending on politics (in USA) and who he is financing.
i
Hawke
Yeah, it's called the failure of capitalism. Just like all the so-called
communist systems failed now it's time for the western model of
capitalism to go. All the flaws are there if you are willing to open
your eyes. The system is based on continuous growth, which in a finite
world doesn't really seem possible. It's also a winner take all system
and as you would expect in that kind of system a small group is winning,
and they are gaining control of all the money and leaving nothing but
the crumbs for the majority. It's clear that the majority is declining
in wealth and standard of living as the upper class consolidates the
bulk of the nation's wealth. If we keep doing what we've been doing
we'll be just like Mexico with the richest man in the world surrounded
by millions of broke peasants.
We better find a way to spread the wealth around pretty soon or it's
going to be a real disaster like we've never seen before. But when you
have an economic system that takes everything from the many and gives it
to the few it always turns out the same. One day the few wind up hanging
upside down like Mussolini. I see that as a real possibility unless
radical changes are made, and soon.
Hawke
Hawke
Except that the Tea Party isn't really a grass roots movement. It's
astroturf. The Koch brothers and the Dick Armey's of the world have been
behind much of it, paying for it, organizing it, and playing the role of
the invisible hand. Without them you have no Tea Party. So that's why
you aren't seeing them out there fighting for higher wages and benefits
for working people. They're just stooges of the wealthy.
Hawke
Hawke
Why don't you ask him that as well as how much the Koch brothers are
spending and who spent more. I'm sure he has all the means necessary to
dig into that kind of information and bring it back to us. Ha, yeah. All
he knows is what he hears from right wing media. He never actually
questions anyone on the right about anything. He just follows.
Hawke
dca...@krl.org
> We better find a way to spread the wealth around pretty soon or it's
> going to be a real disaster like we've never seen before. But when you
> have an economic system that takes everything from the many and gives it
> to the few it always turns out the same. One day the few wind up hanging
> upside down like Mussolini. I see that as a real possibility unless
> radical changes are made, and soon.
>
> Hawke
There is a way to spread the wealth around. It is called getting an
education and a better job. Then not spending all the money you make
on things which are the latest gadgets. And actually saving some
money and learning about investing so you get a return that is more
than inflation.
The problem is that this takes actual work. And you do not end up
with the gadgets as iphones. Or at least you do not end up with the
gadgets until they are no longer the latest thing.
Look at countries as South Korea. They put a lot of emphasis on
education and their standard of living has improved a lot.
We on the other hand have a lot of very poor public schools. And our
standard of living has been relatively stagnant.
The days of making good money from factory jobs requiring no education
are over. The world has replaced most of those jobs with machines.
Our economic system rewards those that work and are intelligent.
Dan
Ignoramus24811
Dan, it is only a matter of time before the "somewhat more
intelligent" people will be replaced by computers, as well.
The bar will be raised constantly.
What you say, makes a lot of sense, except that 1) one cannot easily
become much more intelligent and 2) computers do become much more
intelligent as they evlolve and as computer programming becomes more
sophisticated.
i
F. George McDuffee
============
While this sounds good, it also has several tacit
requirements embedded that no one wants to talk about.
(1) No matter how much "education" you have, it is no
guarantee of making a living. Your expertise must be in a
field that is in demand and there are employers [or
customers] willing to pay an equitable wage, adequate to not
only make a living, but amortize the cost of the education
over a reasonable period of working life, i.e. student
loans. "Build it and they will come," is a line from a movie
and not viable economic advice.
(2) The vast majority of the American population does not
need any instruction in "investing" at this point, except to
avoid "wall street," with their scams, grifts, and cons.
What they need is simple instruction in basic personal
finance, for example just how much a credit card balance
costs, why you should steer clear of the "pay day" lenders
and what APR means. The difference between an "investment"
which pays you, and an expense, albeit necessary, such as a
house or car, for which you pay and pay and pay should be
stressed.
(3) While there are indeed many below average public schools
in the US [one-half of them in fact] this is far more an
excuse than anything else. To compare the results of South
Korean or other traditional societies, with highly
competitive school systems with the results of the US
schools is to compare apples and oranges. Not only are the
family dynamic totally different, the dullards, the lazy and
the mal-contents are weeded out early through a series of
toll-gate examinations in the competitive school systems,
while the US school systems mandate education for all until
the age of 16, or increasingly 18, regardless of mental
capacity/stability, suitability for intellectual
achievement, desire, and physical handicap, i.e. "main
streaming." Another factor is the relative uniformity of
the students and backgrounds in the traditional societies
[for example, in Korea, the students all speak Korean], and
the wide [wild?] divergence of student students/backgrounds
in the US.
This is by no means a new argument/discussion, and dates
back to at least the Victorian efforts to improve society.
This dichotomy was explored at some length by Tussing who
discusses and analyses the difference between the
individual/case and generic/class models of the causes of
poverty and/or low socio-economic achievement. As he points
out, it is far easier (and safer) to study and attempt to
"fix" the individual than it is to study and attempt to fix
the environment/culture in which the individual is embedded.
IMNSHO -- in any real world situation, there appears to be a
mix of both the individual/case and generic/class, with the
relative importance changing over time as the culture and
economy evolve, with the generic/class components currently
the most important.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2095569
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/Tussing_CV.pdf?n=6060
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1970.tb00482.x/abstract
http://socyberty.com/social-sciences/poverty-and-its-consequences/
http://www.gdrc.org/icm/poverty-causes.htm
Note that under critical analysis, actions that should
logically reduce poverty under one model may increase [or
simply redistribute] poverty under the other model
[generic/class v individual/case].
-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
Gunner Asch
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.25197.invalid> wrote:
Google is your friend.
And be sure to look his contributions for the 2008 election....
<VBG>
There are lots of articles out there about Soros and American politics
and how the Leftwing hides his influence..and his money
http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/2010/10/18/george-soros-millions-buying-political-reporters-for-npr/
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/09/09/soros-watch-45-million-to-sabotage-americas-judiciary/
In those two articles alone..$200 Million dollars went to the Left.....
And some of the actions he is believed to be responsible for...
Although to be fair..during the 2010 election..he didnt spent anywhere
near $200 million. In fact..far less. Maybe only a $100 million. Shrug
Interesting video there...<G>
Gunner
Wes
>Ha! The fund management industry doesn't "destroy" value. They just put it
>in their own pockets instead of the clients'. d8-)
>
The truest words you ever uttered Ed.
Wes
dca...@krl.org
>
> Dan, it is only a matter of time before the "somewhat more
> intelligent" people will be replaced by computers, as well.
>
> The bar will be raised constantly.
>
> What you say, makes a lot of sense, except that 1) one cannot easily
> become much more intelligent and 2) computers do become much more
> intelligent as they evlolve and as computer programming becomes more
> sophisticated.
>
> i
You are right. But one can become more educated. Not as good as
becoming more intelligent, but a better educated work force could
compete with S. Korea.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
associates.us> wrote:
> While this sounds good, it also has several tacit
> requirements embedded that no one wants to talk about.
>
> (1) No matter how much "education" you have, it is no
> guarantee of making a living. Your expertise must be in a
> field that is in demand and there are employers [or
> customers] willing to pay an equitable wage, adequate to not
> only make a living, but amortize the cost of the education
> over a reasonable period of working life, i.e. student
> loans. "Build it and they will come," is a line from a movie
> and not viable economic advice.
>
one will be better off than not studying. If you get a degree in Art
History you will learn to write well. And that is something that is
in demand.
> (2) The vast majority of the American population does not
> need any instruction in "investing" at this point, except to
> avoid "wall street," with their scams, grifts, and cons.
> What they need is simple instruction in basic personal
> finance, for example just how much a credit card balance
> costs, why you should steer clear of the "pay day" lenders
> and what APR means. The difference between an "investment"
> which pays you, and an expense, albeit necessary, such as a
> house or car, for which you pay and pay and pay should be
> stressed.
Well I think you are wrong there. Iggy and I both believe in
investing. You need to know when to buy and when not to buy. The
stuff you are talking about as credic card balance costs should be
obvious.
>
> (3) While there are indeed many below average public schools
> in the US [one-half of them in fact] this is far more an
> excuse than anything else. To compare the results of South
> Korean or other traditional societies, with highly
> competitive school systems with the results of the US
> schools is to compare apples and oranges. Not only are the
> family dynamic totally different, the dullards, the lazy and
> the mal-contents are weeded out early through a series of
> toll-gate examinations in the competitive school systems,
> while the US school systems mandate education for all until
> the age of 16, or increasingly 18, regardless of mental
> capacity/stability, suitability for intellectual
> achievement, desire, and physical handicap, i.e. "main
> streaming." Another factor is the relative uniformity of
> the students and backgrounds in the traditional societies
> [for example, in Korea, the students all speak Korean], and
> the wide [wild?] divergence of student students/backgrounds
> in the US.
>
It is Apples and Oranges. It should not be. The U.S. school systems
ought to be competitive but they are not.
Dan
> This is by no means a new argument/discussion, and dates
> back to at least the Victorian efforts to improve society.
> This dichotomy was explored at some length by Tussing who
> discusses and analyses the difference between the
> individual/case and generic/class models of the causes of
> poverty and/or low socio-economic achievement. As he points
> out, it is far easier (and safer) to study and attempt to
> "fix" the individual than it is to study and attempt to fix
> the environment/culture in which the individual is embedded.
> IMNSHO -- in any real world situation, there appears to be a
> mix of both the individual/case and generic/class, with the
> relative importance changing over time as the culture and
> economy evolve, with the generic/class components currently
Too_Many_Tools
But will they be paid for their additional effort and risk taken?
The answer currently is "No".
If you haven't noticed, technical jobs are being outsourced offshore
by the millions.
An example...do you know that most of Microsoft's source code is
written in India?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> > Note that under critical analysis, actions that should
> > logically reduce poverty under one model may increase [or
> > simply redistribute] poverty under the other model
> > [generic/class v individual/case].
>
> > -- Unka George (George McDuffee)
> > ..............................
> > The past is a foreign country;
> > they do things differently there.
> > L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ever read the instructions that come with Harbor Freight tools?
That is how highly "valued" good writing is.
Sad but true.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> > Note that under critical analysis, actions that should
> > logically reduce poverty under one model may increase [or
> > simply redistribute] poverty under the other model
> > [generic/class v individual/case].
>
> > -- Unka George (George McDuffee)
> > ..............................
> > The past is a foreign country;
> > they do things differently there.
> > L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I argue education starts at home...and it obviously is not happening
there.
It has been proposed...and I agree...that if Johnny won't learn then
the parents should be held to task for his lack of interest. Fining
the parents will get them focused on motivating Johnny to read.
TMT
Hawke
Sounds good in theory. But what about all the people who did what you
say for the last decade and have gone broke, can't find jobs, and are
far worse off than when they started, even though it was no fault of
their own? The problem is what you are saying is a fairy tale not
reality. If you knew how many folks did what you say it the way to
prosperity and never reach it you would think differently. The fact is
in America the odds of moving up are less than in Europe. The fact is in
America people are declining economically. It can't all be blamed on
people being dumb and lazy. Too many who tried their best are not
getting ahead anymore. The path is blocked for most people. A small
percent are getting huge rewards, that's true. But most are living lives
that are not as good as their parents were.
Hawke
Hawke
> I argue education starts at home...and it obviously is not happening
> there.
>
> It has been proposed...and I agree...that if Johnny won't learn then
> the parents should be held to task for his lack of interest. Fining
> the parents will get them focused on motivating Johnny to read.
>
> TMT
Before we all go running off and believing things that are not true,
let's remember where all this criticism of our schools is coming from.
That's right, the anti intellectual, anti reason, very religious,
conservative folk. To hear them you'd think our educational system is
garbage. That's coming from people who all got educated by that system.
It was good enough for them to show their brilliance but now the school
system is worthless. I disagree.
I was still going to college in 2003, so it wasn't all that long ago
that I had a front row seat to what it was like, at least in a
California state university. While it may be true that you find a lot of
dummies and people way behind where they should be in the freshman
class, half of them are weeded out in the first few months of the year.
By the time you finish your chosen degree I'd say our students are
pretty damn good. At least as good as what you find from graduates from
other countries.
Every full professor at my school had a PH.d in their subject. All of
them were super smart and super qualified to teach the subject they were
responsible for. Once past the first year or two and the students were
pretty good too. Then you have graduate school, which nobody gets
accepted into unless they are really excellent students.
So before you believe our system is so shitty keep in mind who is
telling you it is. Is it a dumb shit right winger spouting Foxnews and
AM radio propaganda? Or is it a conservative businessman who has another
selfish motive for putting down our system? Either way, if you actually
went to our colleges and saw what kind of people are coming out of them
I don't think you would have such a negative view of their abilities.
But then since most conservatives/right wingers don't spend a lot of
time in college, or if they do all they know about is business, I
wouldn't pay much attention to their opinion on the subject of education.
Hawke
dca...@krl.org
> But will they be paid for their additional effort and risk taken?
>
> The answer currently is "No".
>
> If you haven't noticed, technical jobs are being outsourced offshore
> by the millions.
>
> An example...do you know that most of Microsoft's source code is
> written in India?
>
> TMT
There are no guarantees. But in general the answer is " Yes ". The
statistics of earnings for college graduates vs high school graduates
makes it clear that having a college degree pays off.
And those millions of technical jobs being outsourced are going to
people that have degrees. Just more proof of what I say.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
> I argue education starts at home...and it obviously is not happening
> there.
>
> It has been proposed...and I agree...that if Johnny won't learn then
> the parents should be held to task for his lack of interest. Fining
> the parents will get them focused on motivating Johnny to read.
>
> TMT
Tell that to the parents in the Washington D.C. area that try to get
their kids in a decent school.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
> Sounds good in theory. But what about all the people who did what you
> say for the last decade and have gone broke, can't find jobs, and are
> far worse off than when they started, even though it was no fault of
> their own? The problem is what you are saying is a fairy tale not
> reality. If you knew how many folks did what you say it the way to
> prosperity and never reach it you would think differently. The fact is
> in America the odds of moving up are less than in Europe. The fact is in
> America people are declining economically. It can't all be blamed on
> people being dumb and lazy. Too many who tried their best are not
> getting ahead anymore. The path is blocked for most people. A small
> percent are getting huge rewards, that's true. But most are living lives
> that are not as good as their parents were.
>
> Hawke
As I said no guarantees. But you need to look at those that did not
graduate from high school and compare them to the average college
graduate. Now tell me how the high school dropouts are doing better
than the college graduates. While you are at it, give us a few cites
of studies that show people that did not go to college are doing
better that those that did.
Now how about showing countries that have high illiterate rates doing
better that countries that have a high percentage of college
graduates.
Your arguments are not very good.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
> On 4/4/2011 11:48 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> Before we all go running off and believing things that are not true,
> let's remember where all this criticism of our schools is coming from.
> That's right, the anti intellectual, anti reason, very religious,
> conservative folk. To hear them you'd think our educational system is
> garbage. That's coming from people who all got educated by that system.
> It was good enough for them to show their brilliance but now the school
> system is worthless. I disagree.
>
So how do you explain the test scores of American kids that are lower
than other countries? How about using some facts in your agruments.
> Every full professor at my school had a PH.d in their subject. All of
> them were super smart and super qualified to teach the subject they were
> responsible for.
You obviously went to a better college than I did. One of my
professors had not graduated from college.
>
> So before you believe our system is so shitty keep in mind who is
> telling you it is. Is it a dumb shit right winger spouting Foxnews and
> AM radio propaganda? Or is it a conservative businessman who has another
> selfish motive for putting down our system? Either way, if you actually
> went to our colleges and saw what kind of people are coming out of them
> I don't think you would have such a negative view of their abilities.
> But then since most conservatives/right wingers don't spend a lot of
> time in college, or if they do all they know about is business, I
> wouldn't pay much attention to their opinion on the subject of education.
>
> Hawke
I actually went to my 50th class reunion and met some of the students.
Dan
Ignoramus8111
The best outcome for all of us would be that workers in China and
India finally see their incomes increase greatly.
i
Ignoramus8111
> graduate from high school and compare them to the average college
> graduate. Now tell me how the high school dropouts are doing better
> than the college graduates. While you are at it, give us a few cites
> of studies that show people that did not go to college are doing
> better that those that did.
>
> Now how about showing countries that have high illiterate rates doing
> better that countries that have a high percentage of college
> graduates.
Dan, it is great to be as well educated as possible. You are
completely right. The problem that I see is that computers can replace
educated people just as well, up to a certain level. And, that level
is rising every year.
i
dca...@krl.org
wrote:
> The best outcome for all of us would be that workers in China and
> India finally see their incomes increase greatly.
>
> i
I see that as inevitable.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
>
> Ever read the instructions that come with Harbor Freight tools?
>
> That is how highly "valued" good writing is.
>
> Sad but true.
>
> TMT
As the Chinese improve their manufacturing and work to get more money
for their tools, the instructions will improve.
Notice that tools made in the U.S. have better written instructions
and command more money in the market place. Proving that good writing
is highly valued.
Dan
Hawke
> On Apr 5, 3:54 am, Hawke<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>> On 4/4/2011 11:48 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
>> Before we all go running off and believing things that are not true,
>> let's remember where all this criticism of our schools is coming from.
>> That's right, the anti intellectual, anti reason, very religious,
>> conservative folk. To hear them you'd think our educational system is
>> garbage. That's coming from people who all got educated by that system.
>> It was good enough for them to show their brilliance but now the school
>> system is worthless. I disagree.
>>
> So how do you explain the test scores of American kids that are lower
> than other countries? How about using some facts in your agruments.
I hate to say this because it sounds racist. But the truth is if you
drop off the scores of blacks and latinos it turns out that the test
scores for American kids are equal or better than the other countries.
Don't ask me where I got this from because I don't remember. But it's
not something I made up. I just can't remember where that statistic came
from.
>
>> Every full professor at my school had a PH.d in their subject. All of
>> them were super smart and super qualified to teach the subject they were
>> responsible for.
>
> You obviously went to a better college than I did. One of my
> professors had not graduated from college.
I did say that I was in school in 2003 so it may be the requirements
have been going up over the years as far as what's required to be a full
professor. That's also California. I don't know about other states.
>> So before you believe our system is so shitty keep in mind who is
>> telling you it is. Is it a dumb shit right winger spouting Foxnews and
>> AM radio propaganda? Or is it a conservative businessman who has another
>> selfish motive for putting down our system? Either way, if you actually
>> went to our colleges and saw what kind of people are coming out of them
>> I don't think you would have such a negative view of their abilities.
>> But then since most conservatives/right wingers don't spend a lot of
>> time in college, or if they do all they know about is business, I
>> wouldn't pay much attention to their opinion on the subject of education.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> I actually went to my 50th class reunion and met some of the students.
>
> Dan
So, were they idiots or not?
Hawke
Hawke
But there is another problem. Even when I was finishing up my degree
back in 2003 there were more women in college than there were men. It
wasn't a big gap but it has continued to grow. In other words, the
problem is that American men are not going to college in the numbers
they did before. Women are going more than ever but men's numbers are
actually dropping. I would say if men don't expect to fall even farther
behind in world competition that has to be stopped. American men have to
keep getting college degrees in the same percentages as they did in the
past, actually they need to increase that number. If not they will get
the lower pay jobs and the women will be the ones making the most money.
Hawke
Hawke
> On Apr 5, 3:34 am, Hawke<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good in theory. But what about all the people who did what you
>> say for the last decade and have gone broke, can't find jobs, and are
>> far worse off than when they started, even though it was no fault of
>> their own? The problem is what you are saying is a fairy tale not
>> reality. If you knew how many folks did what you say it the way to
>> prosperity and never reach it you would think differently. The fact is
>> in America the odds of moving up are less than in Europe. The fact is in
>> America people are declining economically. It can't all be blamed on
>> people being dumb and lazy. Too many who tried their best are not
>> getting ahead anymore. The path is blocked for most people. A small
>> percent are getting huge rewards, that's true. But most are living lives
>> that are not as good as their parents were.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> As I said no guarantees. But you need to look at those that did not
> graduate from high school and compare them to the average college
> graduate. Now tell me how the high school dropouts are doing better
> than the college graduates. While you are at it, give us a few cites
> of studies that show people that did not go to college are doing
> better that those that did.
You're talking statistics so you have to be specific. Is it true that
statistically workers with college degrees make more in their lifetime
than those who don't have a degree? That's true.
Now look at other statistics. Are Americans doing better now financially
than they did a decade ago? No. Have real wages gone up in the last 30
years? No. Have millions more Americans declared bankruptcy and had
their homes foreclosed on them than ever before? Yes. Is the chance of
advancement in America less than in Europe? Yes. Do the wealthy in
America have more in wealth than at any time since 1890? Yes. Is the gap
between the rich and the poor the highest it has ever been? Yes.
Those are statistics too. Your statistic shows something. So do mine.
The idea is to see the trend. I agree that better educated people, as a
rule, do better than the uneducated. But when nearly everyone is going
down it doesn't matter that much what you are doing to get ahead. A
sinking ship takes everyone down. Our trend has not been good.
> Now how about showing countries that have high illiterate rates doing
> better that countries that have a high percentage of college
> graduates.
I don't have access to that kind of statistic. There may be some
examples where that is happening. I don't know of any off the top of my
head though. The general rule is that countries with more educated
people do better than others. Can you say for a fact that is always true?
> Your arguments are not very good.
You don't have to like them. But when you can't put up facts that show
what I have said is factually wrong then you can't refute them. Reread
my first paragraph. Then prove anything I said is incorrect. Then you
can prove my argument is bad. But you haven't done that.
Hawke
dca...@krl.org
>
> I hate to say this because it sounds racist. But the truth is if you
> drop off the scores of blacks and latinos it turns out that the test
> scores for American kids are equal or better than the other countries.
You might have gotten this from a book entitled " The Bell Curve " by
Richard Hermstein and Charles Murray. But I doubt it. Maybe from
someone that reviewed the book.
I think that if you also drop off the scores of the white kids the
scores for the American kids would be equal or better than the other
countries.
>
> > I actually went to my 50th class reunion and met some of the students.
>
> > Dan
>
> So, were they idiots or not?
>
> Hawke
It is hard to tell how bright they are when they are serving drinks
and snacks. They did seem reasonably intelligent. I remember one
girl was majoring in microbiology and had a amateur radio license.
Another group asked me if I had any words of wisdom to impart to
them. I said to be sure to take some economic courses. They were
greatly cheered by this advise as they were all economic majors.
Dan
Too_Many_Tools
I wish that was the case..it is not.
Writing in manufacturing is the step child that no one wants...they
consider it to be an unneed edexpense and will only do it when the
customer forces them to.
I would be the first to say that products would be of a higher quality
if they came with better documentation but the customer seldom will if
ever pay for it.
TMT
F. George McDuffee
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:
<snip>
>> (2) The vast majority of the American population does not
>> need any instruction in "investing" at this point, except to
>> avoid "wall street," with their scams, grifts, and cons.
>> What they need is simple instruction in basic personal
>> finance, for example just how much a credit card balance
>> costs, why you should steer clear of the "pay day" lenders
>> which pays you, and an expense, albeit necessary, such as a
>> house or car, for which you pay and pay and pay should be
>> stressed.
>
>Well I think you are wrong there. Iggy and I both believe in
>investing. You need to know when to buy and when not to buy. The
>stuff you are talking about as credic card balance costs should be
>obvious.
==========
Whenever you see the words "should," or "ought" this is a
red flag, even [particularly] when you use them yourself.
While "investing" may be a good thing, it comes *AFTER*
getting "finance" under control.
For additional information on this point see
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/credit/2011-04-04-financial-literacy-lags.htm
<snip>
The economy may be on firmer footing, but many American
families are still in financial distress and lack the
financial skills they need to climb out of debt, according
to the fifth annual Financial Literacy Survey released
Tuesday by the National Foundation for Credit Counseling.
<snip>
Too_Many_Tools
FYI...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-04-02-our-view_x.htm
TMT
Boys' turn: Now they need help getting into colleges
Updated 4/2/2006 9:17 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print |
Parents dropping off sons or daughters at college typically gather in
a large hall to hear the welcome message from the college president,
who says something to the effect of: "This is the smartest, most
talented class we've ever admitted. It represents students from all 50
states — and we didn't find someone from Wyoming until two days ago!"
Opposing view: Don't favor boys over girls
Everyone chuckles, but the parents from populous and competitive
states such as California or New Jersey are thinking that the kid from
Wyoming had an easier time winning a spot in this freshman class.
True enough. When it comes to college admissions, not everything is
equal. And, appropriately enough, not everything is based on grade
point averages and SAT or ACT scores. Numbers can tell you only so
much.
College admissions officers take pride in pulling in a mix —
international students, athletes, minorities, urban and rural
residents — to make their student bodies interesting and diverse.
Lately, a nationwide shortage of highly qualified male applicants has
admissions directors at private institutions (along with a few from
public universities, which face separate legal issues when making
exceptions based on race or gender) reaching deeper into their
applicant pools to get something close to gender balance on campus.
That angers some hard-working, high-achieving high school senior girls
who see no reason why boys with lower test scores should get an edge —
just as a generation of attempts to help girls has angered boys.
The dilemma admissions directors face is also a problem for the nation
generally. The number of boys who are either qualified for college or
want to go to college is in an alarming decline, and if it has gone
unnoticed by the general public, it hasn't on campus. Men make up only
43% of college populations. At many colleges, the percentage of men
has dropped to less than 40%, the tipping point where social relations
get strained.
Admission directors prefer to keep the gender balance at 55% female
and 45% male. But that requires taking in boys who on paper look less
qualified.
Not everyone does that. The admissions director at American University
in Washington, D.C., takes the position that boys and girls should be
assessed equally. The result: AU's student population is two-thirds
female.
That might be fine for American, but more broadly, having too few
college-educated men will hurt U.S. competitiveness. And if girls who
lose out now feel cheated, they won't when they're seeking mates or
when their own sons are bound for college.
The deeper question is why boys' performance is declining. Two
important points:
•The reason remains unsolved. Something unhealthy is happening in K-12
schools, where many boys are disproportionately diagnosed with
learning disabilities and over-medicated with attention-deficit drugs.
While girls' academic aspirations continue to rise, boys' are flat-
lining. Ideally, this disparity should be diagnosed and fixed at the
secondary school level. But until it is, boys might need a leg up in
college admissions.
• Colleges need freedom to choose. Telling them they can't give
preferences to boys is a short step from saying they can't do the same
for flute players, cross-country runners, or smart kids from inferior
schools. With the exception of racial discrimination, schools should
have the leeway to decide what, for them, constitutes the ideal mix.
If aggrieved girls listen closely to admissions officers, they will
hear them talk about building communities. The straight-A student is
an important part of those communities. So is having enough men on
campus.
Posted 4/2/2006 9:13 PM ET
Too_Many_Tools
I would have recommended math courses.
Economics is what got us into this Great Recession.
Math in science and engineering through manufacturing, medical and
technology will get us out of it.
TMT
F. George McDuffee
<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
<snip>
>You're talking statistics so you have to be specific. Is it true that
>statistically workers with college degrees make more in their lifetime
>than those who don't have a degree? That's true.
<snip>
=========
To make a meaningful financial analysis the time value of
money and opportunity costs must be considered.
Two accepted methods are ROI [return on investment] and DCF
[discounted cash flow], which are frequently combined in the
IRR [internal rate of return] metric.
"Education" when analyzed on this [financial] basis is
frequently and increasingly a very poor investment because
of the extreme front loading of expenses, the rapidly rising
acquisition costs, the very high opportunity costs, and the
rapidly increasing probability of obselesence/redundency of
the knowledge/skills so obtained (or offshoring) over a
working life. This is particularly true in technical fields
such as engineering and IT [information technology] where it
is almost impossible for the older practitioners (i.e. > 30)
to obtain a job in these fields.
To see a short monograph I wrote on this goto
http://mcduffee-associates.us/dissertation/valed.pdf
Also see a short monograph on the gender income problem.
http://mcduffee-associates.us/dissertation/femwork.pdf
Jon Elson
>
> An example...do you know that most of Microsoft's source code is
> written in India?
Well, they can't do any worse than the guys in Redmond WA have done the last
15 years or so.
Jon
Jon Elson
>
> Ever read the instructions that come with Harbor Freight tools?
>
> That is how highly "valued" good writing is.
It is not just the language, there is something else, maybe cultural.
I got a VFD donated some years ago by the esteemed Fitch Williams through
this news group. (Thanks, Fitch!) I called up Toshiba to get the manual,
and the tech consultant said "Gee, we don't sell many of those in the US."
I should have suspected there was a reason for that. He sent a manual,
and it was one of the most frustrating, inscrutable, confusing things I've
ever wrestled with. I got the impression it was mostly a Japanese cultural
thing, it is impolite to "tell" somebody how to do something. You have to
explain in detail how it "works" and then they have to figure out how to
set it up themselves. So, the pieces of info you need to figure out how to
wire a pushbutton to the control and have it start the motor are in 5
places, and you have to pick each tidbit up from a different chapter.
I also bought a used pick and place machine, originally made by Yamaha, but
this one was sold under the Philips label. I have several manuals printed
a couple years apart. The first one has that feel of being badly
translated twice, from Japanese to Dutch and finally to English. The later
manual must have been completely rewritten for the US market by people
familiar with pick and place operations, and is MUCH better.
But, there is no end to laughably bad manuals!
Jon
Martin Eastburn
semiconductor devices) - the old machines had a Data General computer
to host testers and slurp data...
A competitor from Japan - used DG computers also. Their manuals
were DG shipped Japanese language manuals to Japan. 'They' then
translated them to English. They might have ordered English manuals ...
I had boxes of good manuals and they had manuals the were at best a
joke. I finally told a friend at that company that a xxx box in the
computer room should be delivered to a manager in the other department.
He hand carried it there and we got a big favor on the cuff from the
guy. Now the boss had manuals he could read and understand - and train
his guys.
Teach them to buy the foreign stuff. And have foreign Application guys
that didn't understand the problem.
Martin
dca...@krl.org
> I would have recommended math courses.
>
> Economics is what got us into this Great Recession.
>
> Math in science and engineering through manufacturing, medical and
> technology will get us out of it.
>
> TMT
Actually it was Math that got us.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
associates.us> wrote:
>
> >Well I think you are wrong there. Iggy and I both believe in
> >investing. You need to know when to buy and when not to buy. The
> >stuff you are talking about as credic card balance costs should be
> >obvious.
>
> <snip>
> ==========
> Whenever you see the words "should," or "ought" this is a
> red flag, even [particularly] when you use them yourself.
> While "investing" may be a good thing, it comes *AFTER*
> getting "finance" under control.
>
> -- Unka George (George McDuffee)
If you put investing as a top priority, you will have personal
finances under control.
Dan
Too_Many_Tools
Most Microsoft code has been written elsewhere than Redmond for many
years.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
You are correct that culture comes into play.
Experience determines language...ever wonder why English doesn't have
a specific word for tsunami but Japanese does?
Also for any language to language translation, languages will lack
certain words for the intent of the description.
Languages are a tool to convey knowledge..and one needs to understand
how to use the specific tool.
Inuit, the language spoken by Eskimos, have 32 different words to
describe snow...English has one...right?
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow
My point is when you come across a poorly written manual, it is an
indication of a manufacture's priorities...and that they cut costs/
corners.
It is an indication that they likely cut corners elsewhere too.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Could you expand on that?
The math easily showed that we were heading towards a economic brick
wall..and have hit it.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
I disagree...I have seen many "investors" who had a personal balance
sheet that was a train wreck.
TMT
dca...@krl.org
> I disagree...I have seen many "investors" who had a personal balance
> sheet that was a train wreck.
>
> TMT
How much did they have in personal investments?
Dan
dca...@krl.org
> Could you expand on that?
>
> The math easily showed that we were heading towards a economic brick
> wall..and have hit it.
>
> TMT
The risk of derivatives was analyzed and the math said that the risk
was low as the chance of multiple failures was low. So lots of
derivatives were sold as low risk investments.
How do you think the math showed the economy heading to a brick wall?
And equally important, when? When it was too late?
Dan
Ignoramus21203
> On Apr 6, 10:53?am, Too_Many_Tools
Dan, I have to say that the above is a dangerous simplification.
The real mistake was extending credit way too much, and giving credit
to the wrong people. What followed (loan losses and contraction of
credit), occurred due to that.
The "derivatives"'s job was to give different investors a different
parts of loan loss risk. They by themselves, behaved predictably.
A couple of firms went down due to dumb derivatives positions, but in
the big scheme of things the impact of that was relatively minor.
i
Too_Many_Tools
>
> <snip>>You're talking statistics so you have to be specific. Is it true that
> >statistically workers with college degrees make more in their lifetime
> >than those who don't have a degree? That's true.
>
> <snip>
> =========
> To make a meaningful financial analysis the time value of
> money and opportunity costs must be considered.
>
> Two accepted methods are ROI [return on investment] and DCF
> [discounted cash flow], which are frequently combined in the
> IRR [internal rate of return] metric.
>
> "Education" when analyzed on this [financial] basis is
> frequently and increasingly a very poor investment because
> of the extreme front loading of expenses, the rapidly rising
> acquisition costs, the very high opportunity costs, and the
> rapidly increasing probability of obselesence/redundency of
> the knowledge/skills so obtained (or offshoring) over a
> working life. This is particularly true in technical fields
> such as engineering and IT [information technology] where it
> is almost impossible for the older practitioners (i.e. > 30)
> to obtain a job in these fields.
>
>
> Also see a short monograph on the gender income problem.http://mcduffee-associates.us/dissertation/femwork.pdf
>
> -- Unka George (George McDuffee)
> ..............................
> The past is a foreign country;
> they do things differently there.
> L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
> The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Well said George...so what does a prospective student/employee do?
We have millions of capable Americans who are willing to work..and get
the needed education.
The answer is what?
Business has no answer to that question.
If would seem that capitalism has failed society if the chicken
doesn't know what egg to lay.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Millions...many millions.
And the Bush Crash of '08 has shown that some (now former)
billionaires had the same problem.
TMT
TMT
Ed Huntress
"Ignoramus21203" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.21203.invalid> wrote in message
news:06idnVp2VpZvDwHQ...@giganews.com...
> On 2011-04-06, dca...@krl.org <dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 10:53?am, Too_Many_Tools
>>
>>> Could you expand on that?
>>>
>>> The math easily showed that we were heading towards a economic brick
>>> wall..and have hit it.
>>>
>>> TMT
>>
>> The risk of derivatives was analyzed and the math said that the risk
>> was low as the chance of multiple failures was low. So lots of
>> derivatives were sold as low risk investments.
>>
>> How do you think the math showed the economy heading to a brick wall?
>> And equally important, when? When it was too late?
>
> Dan, I have to say that the above is a dangerous simplification.
>
> The real mistake was extending credit way too much, and giving credit
> to the wrong people. What followed (loan losses and contraction of
> credit), occurred due to that.
>
> The "derivatives"'s job was to give different investors a different
> parts of loan loss risk. They by themselves, behaved predictably.
Not to speak for Dan, but the quants' risk models did not account for the
interrelatedness of various hedge bets. There is no reason this fact
couldn't have been accounted for in the models -- in fact, a few contrarians
figured that out and got rich taking short positions -- but Dan is right
that the "predictable" math simply didn't account for some realities that
did not appear in risk analysis. The trendlines all favored the quants'
predictions, except for one -- what would happen if there was a downtick in
house prices, resulting not from some external force but from the simple
unsustainability of the housing bubble in relation to true replacement
costs, combined with large layoffs resulting from a recession. And there was
no statistical reason to predict a downtick in house prices. The only reason
was good sense, which is not a factor in the equations. <g>
It's likely, from what I've seen, that giving credit to the "wrong people"
had absolutely nothing to do with it. It would have happened with ANY
people, given the way the finance was operating. Combine very low down
payments, inflated prices, and extreme leverage on the part of the
investment banks, and any slight breeze that blew some people out of jobs
was going to topple the whole house of cards. If the loans were all given to
the "right" people, it may have taken a few more months to unfold but the
event, with the benefit of hindsight, looks almost inevitable. The
investment banks had, effectively, no reserves to cover even the slightest
downturn.
>
> A couple of firms went down due to dumb derivatives positions, but in
> the big scheme of things the impact of that was relatively minor.
Well, the "big scheme of things" was the fact that it was all interrelated,
coupled by such extreme leverage that any piece of the puzzle could have
started a run that the others couldn't cover. No element in the unregulated
financial chain was capable of covering ANY downturn because of all that
leverage. If there had been an across-the-board securities devaluation of 2
or 3%, the whole system was bankrupt, even without any of the factors that
people are pointing to. It didn't need a scapegoat to collapse. All it
needed was an unpredicted event; unpredicted by the math, but predicted by a
few wise folks who know that shit happens.
It was the structure, not the players, who made it inevitable that *some*
player was going to be the trigger for the whole thing. The fraud, the bad
business practices, and the excessive reliance on self-referential financial
models were all possible triggers for the event. But the event itself was
the result of some fundamentals that had gotten horrifically cockeyed
because there was no regulation that required particular levels of reserves,
or down payments. The risk from almost any unpredicted event exceeded the
capability of reserves to cover it.
--
Ed Huntress
Too_Many_Tools
How were the derivatives analyzed?
By math.
Use the wrong inputs and you get the wrong outputs out...garbage in,
garbage out.
Seeing leverage of over 50 to 1 would tell any fool that the risk was
in excess.
The leverage was determined by economics...a practice that is
laughably a "soft art form" at best.
The current economic disaster that we are trying to recover from is
able to be analyzed and the corrective measures determined by math.
Whether the "economics" will be applied to correct the problem..who
the hell knows.
If you doubt me consider this....the best economic minds told us that
there would never be another Great Depression...that they had all the
safeguards in place.
Obviously they were very, very wrong.
TMT
TMT
John R. Carroll
I wouldn't argue with any of that, Ed.
I would, however, add this one thing.
When the NSRO's changed their business models in the 70's from subscription
based to fee per transaction, the game could more easily be rigged from a
central point.
It was an important inflection point and why I asked you once about your
experience at S&P.
Derivative products never ever would have propogated through the system as
they did without investment quality grading.
They couldn't have.
The "interconnectiveness" you refer too would have been reduced to the point
where the carnage would have been significantly reduced, but destructive.
It would not, however, posed a significant systemic risk to the actual (ie.
real) banking or financial system.
The risk being sold would have been appropriately priced and held with the
full appreciation that high rewards aren't low risk.
IOW, hedge funds wouldn't have behaved as they did and neither would banks.
They would have had to book the risks and on that basis, wouldn't have kept
it.
Morgan Stanley and the rest would have operated their derivative products
desks in an entirely different manner.
The demand for product would have been much thinner from qualified investors
and the institutional guys wouldn't have been able to participate AT ALL.
--
John R. Carroll
F. George McDuffee
The problem is not with the math.
In all calculations of this type, simplifications,
abstractions and assumptions are made, some of which are
very doubtful, e.g. "assuming perfect information," or
"assuming costless transactions." The computer acronym GIGO
[garbage in -- garbage out] applies here in spades.
B. Mandelbrot in his well written book _the (mis)behavior of
markets_ makes clear that many of the assumptions made to
simplify calculations, and which underlie many of the most
popular analysis models such as CAP do not model the real
financial data, i.e. risk is not normally distributed.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465043577/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0465043550&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=029X38A1JR7SCJ72YQCR
A second major problem is that many of the models, imperfect
as these were/are, gave ample warning, but the management of
the companies such as Lehman, Bear, AIG, and most
importantly LTCM [Black–Scholes stock option/futures pricing
model] chose to ignore what the models/forecasts were
saying, i.e. when the models said buy, management bought,
when the models said sell, management bought, proving again
the ancient Wall Street maxim "trees don't grow to the sky,"
even as they "cooked the books" and increased leverage to
astronomical levels.
F. George McDuffee
<snip>
>
>Well said George...so what does a prospective student/employee do?
>
>We have millions of capable Americans who are willing to work..and get
>the needed education.
>
>The answer is what?
My first suggestion is that we have long since passed the
point of diminishing returns in the area of formal [college]
education on a macro basis in the current socio-economic
environment. When examined from the perspective of wages
and [un]employment, particularly in the field for which they
were trained/educated, it is clear that we have far too many
graduates of all types. FWIW -- The apparent shortages in
some fields such as health care are not shortages in the
production of qualified practitioners, but a retention
problem due to poor working conditions, "strange" shifts
interfering with family/social life, low pay for the
qualifications demanded, etc.
Given the very significant amounts of money and opportunity
costs involved, it would appear that many people would be
far better off entering a licensed skilled trade such as
plumber or electrician. Spend several years working as a
journeyman for an established company to fully develop the
required skills, and then use the money that would have gone
for university tuition to buy their own truck/tools and open
their own business. Another option would be to enlist in
the Coast Guard, do your 20, invest the college tuition and
other expenses in a good mutual fund, and retire.
>
>Business has no answer to that question.
Step back and ask yourself just why business should have an
answer.
>
>If would seem that capitalism has failed society if the chicken
>doesn't know what egg to lay.
IMNSHO capitalism did not so much fail as it stopped
evolving [or even regressed], as the rate of change of the
society and culture in which it is embedded accelerated,
with the predictable result that it is becoming increasingly
obsolete and non-functional except in the areas/sectors
which have remained largely static.
>
>TMT
=========
FWIW -- see below for 10 industries to avoid.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/02/uss-most-endangered-industries_n_842787.html#s259829&title=10_Video_Postproduction
dca...@krl.org
21203.invalid> wrote:
> Dan, I have to say that the above is a dangerous simplification.
>
>
> i
It is a dangerous simplification, but it was a reply to TMT who
believes that knowing economics is bad relative to knowing math.
Dan
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:fc6dncWDILNjPAHQ...@giganews.com...
I'm not capable of extracting the derivative issues from this whole mix, so
I can't speak to what happened with them. To me, it looks like they just
multiplied the vulnerability of the whole system, adding a sort of
multiplier factor to the whole mess.
But, fundamentally, the dominoes fell when the extreme leverage throughout
the system exposed all of them to an unexpected, across-the-board selling
spree that caught them all with their over-leveraged pants down. The models
they were using, as I understand it, based their risk evaluations on the
system's ability to isolate and contain problems. That was an incorrect
assumption because (and this is where it appears to me that the derivatives
played a role) the derivatives resulted in all of them betting against each
other, and they were depending upon being able to cash in on any losses
covered by their derivatives, in order to cover their own cash demands in a
downturn, when their own investors cashed out on *them*.
Right?
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
> If you doubt me consider this....the best economic minds told us that
> there would never be another Great Depression...that they had all the
> safeguards in place.
>
> Obviously they were very, very wrong.
>
> TMT
So far they are right. We have not had another Great Depression. We
did have a recession, but we are out of that now.
Dan
John R. Carroll
> On Apr 6, 1:00 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> If you doubt me consider this....the best economic minds told us that
>> there would never be another Great Depression...that they had all the
>> safeguards in place.
>>
>> Obviously they were very, very wrong.
>>
>> TMT
>
> So far they are right. We have not had another Great Depression.
Yes Dan, we have.
It's just happening in slow motion.
Well, slower motion, and because of this the effects aren't as discernable
on a daily basis.
IOW, it's the same thing only different.
--
John R. Carroll
Ignoramus21203
> 21203.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Dan, I have to say that the above is a dangerous simplification.
>>
>
> believes that knowing economics is bad relative to knowing math.
>
I understand.
Knowing both is ideal, for sure.
i
Ignoramus21203
It was a Great Recession. It was brief, as a matter of fact, and ended
in 2009.
i
Too_Many_Tools
21203.invalid> wrote:
I disagree Ig.
Warren does too.
TMT
DougC
> On 4/3/2011 2:30 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "Ignoramus25197"<ignoram...@NOSPAM.25197.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:N6udnT2AdYRbeQXQ...@giganews.com...
>>> On 2011-04-03, Ed Huntress<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Ignoramus25197"<ignoram...@NOSPAM.25197.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:D_6dnXJz3aa0fQXQ...@giganews.com...
>>>>> Regarding the vision of the future from the subject field, I believe
>>>>> this to be an unfortunate, but inevitable development, due to the
>>>>> economic effects of computerization.
>>>>>
>>>>> People below IQ of a certain level will see themselves replaced by
>>>>> computers, and that IQ level will rise inexorably, pushing more and
>>>>> more people to the sidelines.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I try my best to be on the better side of this process, I am
>>>>> highly disturbed by it and do not see it as a positive for the human
>>>>> race.
>>>>>
>>>>> i
>>>>
>>>> Until roughly the mid-'70s, the solution was incorporated into
>>>> welfare-state/social-democracy ideas. The expectation was that the
>>>> return
>>>> on
>>>> capital, and interest rates, would decline; capital accumulation would
>>>> expand to keep building output; and the work week would keep getting
>>>> shorter. The output per worker actually would increase slightly faster
>>>> than
>>>> the loss of hours of work. The underlying fact was that productive
>>>> output
>>>> kept climbing as automation became more effective. Then the whole
>>>> question
>>>> became one of distribution. The numbers, in a crude way, worked out to
>>>> support this conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, capital kept the money and increased the divide between the
>>>> haves
>>>> and the have-nots. And here we are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is not at all surprising that people who are pushed to the
>>> sidelines, do not get much out of this situation.
>>>
>>> i
>>
>> For a little while, I was hoping that the Tea Partiers would wise up
>> to the
>> fact that they're being had, and add some kind of equity in earnings
>> pressure to their small-government shtick. So far they haven't caught on,
>> but you never know how a populist movement is going to morph.
>>
>
>
> Except that the Tea Party isn't really a grass roots movement. It's
> astroturf. The Koch brothers and the Dick Armey's of the world have been
> behind much of it, paying for it, organizing it, and playing the role of
> the invisible hand. Without them you have no Tea Party. So that's why
> you aren't seeing them out there fighting for higher wages and benefits
> for working people. They're just stooges of the wealthy.
>
> Hawke
The Tea Party didn't seem to come about until after Ron Paul's historic
run, that unearthed a lot of people who were annoyed at the prospect of
paying a lot of taxes for a lot of benefits that they couldn't enjoy.
I have long suspected that the Tea Party was just a conservative trojan
horse for mainstream GOP's to CLAIM that they support the idea of sound
fiscal policies, without them needing to stand next to R. Paul and have
their voting records compared to his. He didn't always vote as pure as
he claimed--but he was the most fiscally-conservative candidate, by a
long shot.
Too_Many_Tools
> "Ignoramus21203" <ignoramus21...@NOSPAM.21203.invalid> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I disagree Ed.
The downturn was easily predicted by the math.
The designers of the algorithms knew this.
Any good designer would know this.
Its a few clicks on a keyboard and the spreadsheet will immediately
show it.
The tools don't and did not lie.
The problem is those who use the tools wanted certain results...every
increasing profit...and no risk.
Simple goal...without taking into account of any downside.
An analogy is a airplane designer who [designs an airplane that will
never stop flying.
You know the result...sometime it will fall out of the sky and crash.
Any designer would not do such a design.
But his boss would expect him to.
Years ago with the tulip bulb crash they had an excuse of ignorance.
Today we cannot say that we are surprised by this...we knew it was
coming...we just didn't know when.
FWIW...if we held MBAs finacially liable for their decisions and their
impact like we do other REAL professionals (doctors, engineers, etc.)
we would not be in this mess.
TMT
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> Ed Huntress wrote:
> > "Ignoramus21203" <ignoramus21...@NOSPAM.21203.invalid> wrote in
>
> - Show quoted text -
I strongly agree.
The "graders" should be hung by their thumbs.
I have yet to see any significant controls be put into place.
Something to consider when you invest...you cannot tell the good stuff
from the junk.
Any one who says different hasn't learned their hard lesson yet.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
associates.us> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:57:17 -0700 (PDT), "dcas...@krl.org"
>
>
>
>
>
> <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
> >On Apr 6, 10:53 am, Too_Many_Tools
>
> >> Could you expand on that?
>
> >> The math easily showed that we were heading towards a economic brick
> >> wall..and have hit it.
>
> >> TMT
>
> >The risk of derivatives was analyzed and the math said that the risk
> >was low as the chance of multiple failures was low. So lots of
> >derivatives were sold as low risk investments.
>
> >How do you think the math showed the economy heading to a brick wall?
> >And equally important, when? When it was too late?
>
> > Dan
>
> The problem is not with the math.
>
> In all calculations of this type, simplifications,
> abstractions and assumptions are made, some of which are
> very doubtful, e.g. "assuming perfect information," or
> "assuming costless transactions." The computer acronym GIGO
> [garbage in -- garbage out] applies here in spades.
>
> B. Mandelbrot in his well written book _the (mis)behavior of
> markets_ makes clear that many of the assumptions made to
> simplify calculations, and which underlie many of the most
> popular analysis models such as CAP do not model the real
>
> A second major problem is that many of the models, imperfect
> as these were/are, gave ample warning, but the management of
> the companies such as Lehman, Bear, AIG, and most
> importantly LTCM [Black Scholes stock option/futures pricing
> model] chose to ignore what the models/forecasts were
> saying, i.e. when the models said buy, management bought,
> when the models said sell, management bought, proving again
> the ancient Wall Street maxim "trees don't grow to the sky,"
> even as they "cooked the books" and increased leverage to
> astronomical levels.
>
> -- Unka George (George McDuffee)
> ..............................
> The past is a foreign country;
> they do things differently there.
> L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I strongly agree.
And one of the telling signs that it is "business as usual" is that
the same management structures are STILL in place at all the major
players.
Again...remember this when you have the urge to invest in the
"changed" market.
TMT
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote in message
> news:fc6dncWDILNjPAHQ...@giganews.com...
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> "Ignoramus21203" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.21203.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:06idnVp2VpZvDwHQ...@giganews.com...
>>>> On 2011-04-06, dca...@krl.org <dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 6, 10:53?am, Too_Many_Tools
>>>>>
>
> mix, so I can't speak to what happened with them. To me, it looks
> like they just multiplied the vulnerability of the whole system,
> adding a sort of multiplier factor to the whole mess.
Only the synthetic stuff looked like that.
>
> But, fundamentally, the dominoes fell when the extreme leverage
> throughout the system exposed all of them to an unexpected,
> across-the-board selling spree that caught them all with their
> over-leveraged pants down.
You can't seperate the leverage issue but the real problem was collateral
calls.
There really wasn't any selling spree for quite a while.
There were, however, significant collateral calls ( hundreds of billions of
dollars ) that were based on changes in both credit worthiness and
valuations.
Goldman whacked AIG-FP with $30 billion in collateral calls over a period as
short as 90 days.
>The models they were using, as I
> understand it, based their risk evaluations on the system's ability
> to isolate and contain problems.
The mathematical risk model in wide use at the time (VaR) wasn't integrated
into real risk management protocols.
The flaw in Black-Schoals was, and is, well known but the NSRO's continued
to use that model to assertain quality.
They also got into bidding wars with each other that were quality assement
wars rather than price wars.
> That was an incorrect assumption
> because (and this is where it appears to me that the derivatives
> played a role) the derivatives resulted in all of them betting
> against each other, and they were depending upon being able to cash
> in on any losses covered by their derivatives, in order to cover
> their own cash demands in a downturn, when their own investors cashed
> out on *them*.
> Right?
Not really.
Some of that happened but the real end came with the demise of the third
party repo market. Actual money, in other words.
You couldn't post enough collateral even when you were posting T-Bills. And
AAA rated mortgage backed securities?
LMFAO, the "haircut" quickly exceeded what was being charged to factor high
quality receivables - 12 percent plus one per week.
People wanted their money in the morning, not the posted collateral.
This is where excessive leverage played a role.
--
John R. Carroll
Too_Many_Tools
>
> -- Unka George (George McDuffee)
> ..............................
> The past is a foreign country;
> they do things differently there.
> L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Business should have the answer just like any other consumer of a
resource.
You have to ask for it to get it.
If you need MBAs you have no reason to complain when all that society
is producing is social workers.
If you need technical workers, you have none if the schools are
turning out liberal art majors.
Note the recent whining of companies not being able to hire people
immediately off the street for very specific job slots.
To expect the population to play "20 questions" in terms of education
needs (not to mention the years and many dollars invovled..much of it
in loans today) is fool's game...and the public is not playing it.
I have a number of young friends who are in their educational phases
now...very smart folks.
When asked what they should study, I tell them not to follow any
technical field since history has shown us that companies will use and
toss technical majors while offshoring the jobs as quickly as they
can. It has taken decades for factory jobs to be offshored,...while it
took just a few years for the same number of tech jobs to be pushed to
China and India.
So back to my original question..what should the millions of Americans
be training for?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> -- Unka George (George McDuffee)
> ..............................
> The past is a foreign country;
> they do things differently there.
> L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Captialism has failed us George...otherwise we would not have millions
of capable Americans sitting idle while companies sit on trillions of
dollars.
The music has stopped and no one wants to get out of their chair after
seeing what happened to the ones left standing.TMT
DougC
> On Apr 5, 7:02 pm, Hawke<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>> On 4/5/2011 12:42 PM, dcas...@krl.org wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 5, 9:02 am, Ignoramus8111<ignoramus8...@NOSPAM.8111.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> The best outcome for all of us would be that workers in China and
>>>> India finally see their incomes increase greatly.
>>
>>>> i
>>
>>> I see that as inevitable.
>>
>>> Dan
>>
>> But there is another problem. Even when I was finishing up my degree
>> back in 2003 there were more women in college than there were men. It
>> wasn't a big gap but it has continued to grow. In other words, the
>> problem is that American men are not going to college in the numbers
>> they did before. Women are going more than ever but men's numbers are
>> actually dropping. I would say if men don't expect to fall even farther
>> behind in world competition that has to be stopped. American men have to
>> keep getting college degrees in the same percentages as they did in the
>> past, actually they need to increase that number. If not they will get
>> the lower pay jobs and the women will be the ones making the most money.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> FYI...
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-04-02-our-view_x.htm
>
> TMT
>
> Boys' turn: Now they need help getting into colleges
> Updated 4/2/2006 9:17 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print |
>
> .......
>
> Lately, a nationwide shortage of highly qualified male applicants has
> admissions directors at private institutions (along with a few from
> public universities, which face separate legal issues when making
> exceptions based on race or gender) reaching deeper into their
> applicant pools to get something close to gender balance on campus.
> ....
There's a few variations on this sort of story.
I think a lot of it has to do with government-standardized educational
systems trying to target specific outputs, and then screwing with the
inputs dishonestly to obtain the "proper" results (that is, the M&M's
assortment of graduates). College academics themselves share a good
portion to the blame for this.
-------
Also--if anyone wonders why "kids don't go into this career anymore" or
"students aren't taking this college degree program anymore" it's very
likely that they know from alternate sources that the prospect for jobs
is poor. I always love it when someone [not young] howls about how
"these dang kids want to get paid a fortune now, why when I was getting
started i worked for a dollar a day, and free on weekends...."
Machinist is one example, IT/programming is another. These career paths
are largely DOA in the US, and kids know it--no matter what colleges try
to sell them. Kids mostly get MBA's to shove papers around on a desk
because theres always a bunch of companies in the want ads looking for
an MBA to hire.
Too_Many_Tools
> "John R. Carroll" <nunyabidn...@dev.null> wrote in messagenews:fc6dncWDILNjPAHQ...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ed Huntress wrote:
> >> "Ignoramus21203" <ignoramus21...@NOSPAM.21203.invalid> wrote in
> >> messagenews:06idnVp2VpZvDwHQ...@giganews.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually this raises a good question..."What is a suitable leverage
percentage?"
TMT
John R. Carroll
> On Apr 6, 12:25 pm, "John R. Carroll" <nunyabidn...@dev.null> wrote:
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> "Ignoramus21203" <ignoramus21...@NOSPAM.21203.invalid> wrote in
>>> messagenews:06idnVp2VpZvDwHQ...@giganews.com...
>>>> On 2011-04-06, dcas...@krl.org <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 6, 10:53?am, Too_Many_Tools
>>
>
> from the junk.
Sure you can.
You just have to look beyond the ratings.
--
John R. Carroll
Too_Many_Tools
When you take a turn and drive off the cliff, it is wrong...very very
wrong.
We are now in a Great Recession.
If you doubt it, ask the nearest unemployed American.
We may or may not come out of it...or go deeper into The Great
Depression 2.0.
TMT