Why have 3,000 cars been abandoned at Dubai Airport?
Doob Aye
You had to know it was going to end. Dubai's storied boom is starting to
falter as the worldwide economic woes catch up with the nation's real
estate and financial services-fueled good times. Abandoned cars are
beginning to pile up at Dubai International Airport as overextended
expatriates flee. Dubai throws debtors in the pokey, and if you lose your
job, they yank your visa; two good reasons to drive to the airport and
leave your maxed out credit cards on the passenger seat with an "I'm sorry"
note. 3,000 cars are reportedly stockpiled at the airport so far, and with
reports of 1,500 visas a day being cancelled, there may be a lot of dusty,
cut rate luxury cars available for closeout prices.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/18/why-have-there-been-3-000-cars-abandoned-at-the-dubai-airport/
zeez
up.
Brent
> Too bad $ociety is $o fixated on how much $$$$$$$$$$$$ people rack
> up.
No, it's the fixation on having better stuff than the neighbors and
keeping up appearances. Cheap credit corrupts a society, even the
Amish.
Bert Hyman
wrote:
> Why have there been 3,000 cars abandoned at the Dubai airport?
Because their previous "owners" left them there after picking up their
new cars which had just been stolen for them and smuggled in?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Rod Speed
> Doob Aye <doo...@doobie.aye.aye> wrote
>> Why have there been 3,000 cars abandoned at the Dubai airport?
> Because their previous "owners" left them there after picking up their
> new cars which had just been stolen for them and smuggled in?
Nope, they couldnt find anyone to buy their car so
they just abandoned them at the airport when leaving.
Rod Speed
> zeez <ulti...@live.com> wrote
>> Too bad $ociety is $o fixated on how much $$$$$$$$$$$$ people rack up.
> No, it's the fixation on having better stuff than the neighbors and keeping
> up appearances. Cheap credit corrupts a society, even the Amish.
So does money. Like that or lump it.
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640811360577075.html
Just another Murdoch mindless shit rag.
Christopher Helms
> Too bad $ociety is $o fixated on how much $$$$$$$$$$$$ people rack
> up.
"Money is what you could get along beautifully without if other people
weren't so crazy about it."
-Margaret Case Harriman
Laninna
If foreigners lose their employment they have one month to get out.
If you have debt you can be sent to prison.
These people are running like hell.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Bert Hyman wrote
>>> Doob Aye <doo...@doobie.aye.aye> wrote
>>>> Why have there been 3,000 cars abandoned at the Dubai airport?
>>> Because their previous "owners" left them there after picking up
>>> their new cars which had just been stolen for them and smuggled in?
>> Nope, they couldnt find anyone to buy their car so
>> they just abandoned them at the airport when leaving.
> If foreigners lose their employment they have one month to get out.
And its completely trivial to leave in that time.
> If you have debt you can be sent to prison.
And they were very well paid, so only a fool would end up in debt.
> These people are running like hell.
Nope, just doing what is obvious with stuff like their car when there isnt
much of a market for the car because quite a few are losing their job.
Bluuuue Rajah
@news.eternal-september.org:
Cheap credit does a lot more damage than "corrupting" society. It causes
Recessions so severe that they're only a hair's breadth from being
Depressions.
Bluuuue Rajah
@mid.individual.net:
You'd think they'd give them to a random stranger and take a taxi to the
airport.
Bluuuue Rajah
Just like the spider creatures in the Lost in Space movie, Republicans
eat their wounded.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
Been having those pathetic little drug crazed hallucinations long ?
Rod Speed
>>> Doob Aye <doo...@doobie.aye.aye> wrote
>>>> Why have there been 3,000 cars abandoned at the Dubai airport?
>>> Because their previous "owners" left them there after picking up
>>> their new cars which had just been stolen for them and smuggled in?
>> Nope, they couldnt find anyone to buy their car so
>> they just abandoned them at the airport when leaving.
> You'd think they'd give them to a random stranger and take a taxi to the airport.
Why bother ? Makes a lot more sense to drive it to the airport.
Rod Speed
> Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> zeez <ulti...@live.com> wrote
>>> Too bad $ociety is $o fixated on how much $$$$$$$$$$$$ people rack up.
>> No, it's the fixation on having better stuff than the neighbors and keeping
>> up appearances. Cheap credit corrupts a society, even the Amish.
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640811360577075.html
> Cheap credit does a lot more damage than "corrupting" society. It causes
> Recessions so severe that they're only a hair's breadth from being Depressions.
You wouldnt know what a real depression was if one bit you on your lard arse.
Bert Hyman
<scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In message <2uigmb....@news.alt.net>, "Doob Aye"
><doo...@doobie.aye.aye> wrote:
>
>>Abandoned cars are
>>beginning to pile up at Dubai International Airport as overextended
>>expatriates flee. Dubai throws debtors in the pokey
>
> Something the US should seriously consider.
Why?
If I owe you money, how does having The State snatch me up and throw me
in jail help you in the least?
Bob Peters
> In message <2uigmb....@news.alt.net>, "Doob Aye"
> <doo...@doobie.aye.aye> wrote:
>
>> beginning to pile up at Dubai International Airport as overextended
>
> prisons, we would not be in a complete financial meltdown right now.
>
Should have criminalized making all of those "sub-prime" "liar loans"
made knowing that the company that made the loan would only bundle it
into an "investment" for sale to some other number-bumblers.
You post often and one-sidedly about "personal responsibility" and the
application of economic Darwinism against the people who fall for the
predatory lending practices. Why not also have corporate responsibility
for those making them and letting natural selection take out predator
and prey alike as in nature?
As for me, I was smart enough to read and reject the offers of those
"guaranteed acceptance" credit cards designed to max themselves out with
fees, thereby hooking the consumer into making minimum payments on a
card issued at it's limit already and therefore useless as credit.
Better to live without credit, thereby staying within one's means by
default than to obligate oneself to payments made for no value returned.
--
(If you want to email me, lose the pretenses.)
Don't settle for corporate values misrepresented as Christian values.
Join the Project for a New American Populist Movement.
http://www.populism.us
"Knee-jerk disdain of Government cannot rebuild our levees or fix our
schools."--President Obama
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
krw
If you knew there were real consequences for your actions you might
think twice.
Rod Speed
>>> Abandoned cars are beginning to pile up at Dubai International Airport
>>> as overextended expatriates flee. Dubai throws debtors in the pokey
>> Something the US should seriously consider.
> Why?
> If I owe you money, how does having The State snatch
> me up and throw me in jail help you in the least?
In theory it does discourage some from ending up not being able to repay debt.
Rod Speed
> Doob Aye <doo...@doobie.aye.aye> wrote
>> Abandoned cars are beginning to pile up at Dubai International Airport
>> as overextended expatriates flee. Dubai throws debtors in the pokey
> Something the US should seriously consider.
Nope.
> If we still had debtor's prisons, we would not
> be in a complete financial meltdown right now.
Have fun explaining how come we did see complete financial
meltdowns just as bad or worse when there were still debtors prisons.
>> 3,000 cars are reportedly stockpiled at the airport so far, and
>> with reports of 1,500 visas a day being cancelled, there may be
>> a lot of dusty, cut rate luxury cars available for closeout prices.
> They might be cheap to purchase, but the shipping costs would kill ya.
> :)
Shipping isnt as expensive as you might expect.
Matthew Russotto
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In message <2uigmb....@news.alt.net>, "Doob Aye"
><doo...@doobie.aye.aye> wrote:
>
>>beginning to pile up at Dubai International Airport as overextended
>
>prisons, we would not be in a complete financial meltdown right now.
Sure we would, Ebeneezer. No one would worry about the debtor's
prisons until the meltdown came, at which point it'd be too late.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
Matthew Russotto
Bob Peters <b...@pretensesbobpeters61.us> wrote:
>Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>
>> Something the US should seriously consider. If we still had debtor's
>> prisons, we would not be in a complete financial meltdown right now.
>>
>
>Should have criminalized making all of those "sub-prime" "liar loans"
>made knowing that the company that made the loan would only bundle it
>into an "investment" for sale to some other number-bumblers.
>
>You post often and one-sidedly about "personal responsibility" and the
>application of economic Darwinism against the people who fall for the
>predatory lending practices. Why not also have corporate responsibility
>for those making them and letting natural selection take out predator
>and prey alike as in nature?
To take out a "liar's loan", one has to lie. There's no predator-prey
relationship; rather, it's a collaboration between the lender or
broker and the mortgagee against the ultimate buyer or insurer of the
bad paper. The mortgagee is not a victim but a co-conspirator.
Bob Peters
Assuming, of course, that the borrower has the brains to read what was
filled in on all the blanks and contest what was wrong against who knows
what pressure to sign and the promise of a property they really can't
afford but may think they can.
No excusing the dumb Bubbas who fall into that category, but when a
system is set up for it, they will come, and the brokers know it. And
the bank behind it can't claim total innocence in the matter when it's
their people doing it.
I'm just saying there's more blame to spread around than the corporatist
meme of blaming it all on the borrower-consumer.
nada
> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>> In message <2uigmb....@news.alt.net>, "Doob Aye"
>> <doo...@doobie.aye.aye> wrote:
>>
>>> Abandoned cars are beginning to pile up at Dubai International
>>> Airport as overextended expatriates flee. Dubai throws debtors in the
>>> pokey
>>
>> Something the US should seriously consider. If we still had debtor's
>> prisons, we would not be in a complete financial meltdown right now.
>>
>
> Should have criminalized making all of those "sub-prime" "liar loans"
> made knowing that the company that made the loan would only bundle it
> into an "investment" for sale to some other number-bumblers.
>
> You post often and one-sidedly about "personal responsibility" and the
> application of economic Darwinism against the people who fall for the
> predatory lending practices. Why not also have corporate responsibility
> for those making them and letting natural selection take out predator
> and prey alike as in nature?
>
> As for me, I was smart enough to read and reject the offers of those
> "guaranteed acceptance" credit cards designed to max themselves out with
> fees, thereby hooking the consumer into making minimum payments on a
> card issued at it's limit already and therefore useless as credit.
>
> Better to live without credit, thereby staying within one's means by
> default than to obligate oneself to payments made for no value returned.
>
>
You're bein upatriotic by suggeating everysone should npot be in debt. :)
krw
<b...@pretensesbobpeters61.us> wrote:
>Scott in SoCal wrote:
>> In message <2uigmb....@news.alt.net>, "Doob Aye"
>> <doo...@doobie.aye.aye> wrote:
>>
>>> Abandoned cars are
>>> beginning to pile up at Dubai International Airport as overextended
>>> expatriates flee. Dubai throws debtors in the pokey
>>
>> Something the US should seriously consider. If we still had debtor's
>> prisons, we would not be in a complete financial meltdown right now.
>>
>
>Should have criminalized making all of those "sub-prime" "liar loans"
>made knowing that the company that made the loan would only bundle it
>into an "investment" for sale to some other number-bumblers.
Sure, anyone who falsified a load application should be prosecuted.
>You post often and one-sidedly about "personal responsibility" and the
>application of economic Darwinism against the people who fall for the
>predatory lending practices. Why not also have corporate responsibility
>for those making them and letting natural selection take out predator
>and prey alike as in nature?
Because the dummies didn't read the contract they signed, yes they too
should be held responsible for their actions.
>As for me, I was smart enough to read and reject the offers of those
>"guaranteed acceptance" credit cards designed to max themselves out with
>fees, thereby hooking the consumer into making minimum payments on a
>card issued at it's limit already and therefore useless as credit.
>Better to live without credit, thereby staying within one's means by
>default than to obligate oneself to payments made for no value returned.
That's a good plan for those too weak to use credit wisely. For many
others, there is good reason to "obligate oneself to payments made"
_for_ value returned.
aemeijers
> In message <2uigmb....@news.alt.net>, "Doob Aye"
> <doo...@doobie.aye.aye> wrote:
>
>> Abandoned cars are
>> beginning to pile up at Dubai International Airport as overextended
>> expatriates flee. Dubai throws debtors in the pokey
>
> Something the US should seriously consider. If we still had debtor's
> prisons, we would not be in a complete financial meltdown right now.
>
Uh, and lock them up WHERE? The local, state, and federal prisons can't
afford to keep actual criminals locked up any more. The various units of
government are broke and getting broker. If they were companies, their
creditors would have forced them into liquidation long ago, and the
directors would be doing perp walks on TV for fiduciary malfeasance.
--
aem sends...
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> If we still had debtor's prisons, we would not
>>> be in a complete financial meltdown right now.
>> Have fun explaining how come we did see complete financial
>> meltdowns just as bad or worse when there were still debtors prisons.
> How can I explain something that never happened?
Corse it happened.
Charlie
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote innews:7b889iF...@mid.individual.net:
How's Democratic Governor Granholm doing for Michigan? Or Democratic
US Senators Debbie Stabenow and your other Democratic Senator Comb
over doing for Michigan? Have they put you back to work yet?
Marsha
> How's Democratic Governor Granholm doing for Michigan? Or Democratic
> US Senators Debbie Stabenow and your other Democratic Senator Comb
> over doing for Michigan? Have they put you back to work yet?
Don't for Michigan's neighbor, Ohio, with its Democratic Governor
Strickland. He's not putting anyone to work either.
Marsha
Sanity
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:h2qplf$a6$1...@news.datemas.de...
No one is mentioning "WHEN" they lost their jobs and under whose admin.
krw
wrote:
Oh, that's right. Up until recently Michigan and Ohio had Republican
governors?
Brent
> Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:h2m3lt$5kb$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On 2009-07-03, zeez <ulti...@live.com> wrote:
>>> Too bad $ociety is $o fixated on how much $$$$$$$$$$$$ people rack
>>> up.
>>
>> No, it's the fixation on having better stuff than the neighbors and
>> keeping up appearances. Cheap credit corrupts a society, even the
>> Amish.
>>
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640811360577075.html
>
> Cheap credit does a lot more damage than "corrupting" society. It causes
> Recessions so severe that they're only a hair's breadth from being
> Depressions.
It causes depressions as well. But to question such a system is to be a
'kook'.
Brent
Same way it helps with any other thing. It increases the power and reach
of the state.
Brent
> In message <Xns9C3E960BA49...@216.250.184.7>, Bert Hyman
> me.
>
> The key concept here is "deterrence."
LOL. Like the state cares for such a thing. The government has told us
for many many decades that driving faster than it says so is dangerous,
deadly, etc. How has its punishments worked as deterrence?
Trouble with giving deadbeats credit? Simple solution, the central bank
could stop fixing interest rates and the government could stop bailing
out lenders. Then the lenders will be more careful, deadbeats won't get
the loans in the first place. Problem solved without increasing the
power of the state over our lives. But that's not what the state wants.
Brent
> In message <_7GdnTGugdyjQ9LX...@speakeasy.net>,
> russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>No one would worry about the debtor's
>>prisons until the meltdown came, at which point it'd be too late.
>
> them?
Simple economic calculation. Locking a person up cost even more money
on top of what they already owed.
Rod Speed
>>> No one would worry about the debtor's prisons until
>>> the meltdown came, at which point it'd be too late.
>> If no one was worried about them, then how come we no longer have them?
> Simple economic calculation. Locking a person up cost
> even more money on top of what they already owed.
That isnt the reason they were stopped.
Those chucked in debtors prisons mostly had to pay the cost
of their stay in the prison, on top of paying what they owed.
It was basically a change in what you could get imprisoned for.
We also saw a change in what you could get executed for too thru those times.
Bob Peters
But that cost is borne by the taxpayers, not the credit mongers.
Therefore, it's all good in the minds of the number-bumbling industry.
Brent
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2009-07-05, Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> In message <_7GdnTGugdyjQ9LX...@speakeasy.net>,
>>> russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>> No one would worry about the debtor's
>>>> prisons until the meltdown came, at which point it'd be too late.
>>> If no one was worried about them, then how come we no longer have
>>> them?
>>
>> Simple economic calculation. Locking a person up cost even more money
>> on top of what they already owed.
>>
>>
>
> But that cost is borne by the taxpayers, not the credit mongers.
> Therefore, it's all good in the minds of the number-bumbling industry.
It's better for the banks to have the person out there working and in
debt up to his eyeballs too.
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote innews:7b889iF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>
> > Laninna wrote
> >> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>> Bert Hyman wrote
> >>>> Doob Aye <doo...@doobie.aye.aye> wrote
>
> >>>>> Why have there been 3,000 cars abandoned at the Dubai airport?
> >>>> Because their previous "owners" left them there after picking up
> >>>> their new cars which had just been stolen for them and smuggled in?
>
> >>> Nope, they couldnt find anyone to buy their car so
> >>> they just abandoned them at the airport when leaving.
>
> >> If foreigners lose their employment they have one month to get out.
>
> > And its completely trivial to leave in that time.
>
> >> If you have debt you can be sent to prison.
>
> > And they were very well paid, so only a fool would end up in debt.
>
> >> These people are running like hell.
>
> > Nope, just doing what is obvious with stuff like their car when there
> > isnt much of a market for the car because quite a few are losing their
> > job.
>
> Just like the spider creatures in the Lost in Space movie, Republicans
> eat their wounded.
With the level of brain damage demonstrated by your exemplary grammar,
it is quite understandable why you're a democrat.
Matthew Russotto
>russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>prisons until the meltdown came, at which point it'd be too late.
>
>them?
For many reasons, likely among them that they did not work.
N8N
Importing a late model ROW vehicle into the US might range from
difficult to impossible, however, due to different safety/lighting/
etc. standards. You'd think that all you'd have to do would be to
change the headlights and speedometer, but it's often not that easy.
Otherwise, one could set up a nice little business selling off
abandoned cars... I'm sure there's lots of people who'd like to have
dirt cheap decent vehicles.
nate
Sanity
"Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy"
<TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
message
news:611e1160-5811-4158...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I could have been a Republican but then they discovered I had a double digit
IQ
Ad absurdum per aspera
> > Something the US should seriously consider. If we still had debtor's
> > prisons, we would not be in a complete financial meltdown right now.
Actually, there are people who point to the tolerance of failure (even
serial failure) in US business and its legal foundations as one of
the major reasons the country has been so successful. In
particular, debtor's prison is a thoroughly obsolete idea in economic
theory (to say nothing of its personal impact--it is one of the
reasons "Dickensian" is not a happy adjective).
A fair bit of the current crisis is rooted in acts of, more or less,
bad faith at both high and low levels, some of which are actionable
and can and should be punished. But not that way. And a lot of it
consists of tens of millions of acts of wishful thinking and excessive
confidence in the future. When one guy buys high and sells low, it's
an embarrassment. When millions of people do, it's a disaster -- for
them individually, for the country, and for the big boys who made the
same mistakes on a larger scale, or who made three levels of meta-
mistakes by bundling those individual bad decisions into big bad
decisions, selling pieces of the big bad decisions as investment
vehicles, and betting on the performance of those vehicles.
It's almost to the point of putting up symbolic bars at the ports of
entry and declaring us all to be in debtor's prison.
Ironically, a lot of Dubai's problem is failure in *some* aspects of
its attempt to turn itself into a sort of business center (in the
curious position of being the only member of the UAE with no oil), and
perhaps a larger UAE strategy to have other forms of income when the
oil runs out -- good things, no?
As for those abandoned cars, it isn't just the prospect of
imprisonment, but the fact that expat workers only have a month to
leave the country after losing their jobs. A lot of people went there
during the boom, some seeking their fortune and some just seeking
entry-level opportunity; when the boom went bust, they had to keep
moving. Different tune, same dance, old as the hills.
--Joe
Sanity
"Sanity" <san...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:h2t65m$o26$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>SNIP<
>
>>With the level of brain damage demonstrated by your exemplary grammar,
>>it is quite understandable why you're a democrat.
>
> I could have been a Republican but then they discovered I had a double
> digit IQ
>
Of course I forgot to mention that double digit IQ made me over qualified to
be in the Republican party.
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
> "Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in messagenews:h2qplf$a6$1...@news.datemas.de...
What the fuck does it matter "WHEN" the jobs were lost, anyways? Most
people, particularly Americans, are too stupid to make the proper
connection, anyway. For example, my previous employer of 11 years
bellied up in 2003. Between 1992 & 1995 we saw 20% growth per year,
and the jobs we were creating were fairly easy (labor wise) and decent
paying (half again the state's median wage) but as soon as that retard
Clinton signed NAFTA, all we could do was stem the blood loss until
2003, at which point there was no more blood.
Business tanked in 2003. Most retards would associate this with G.W.
Bush's admin, as opposed to placing the proper blame, that being on
Clinton.
America is getting what it deserves, based on the complete failure of
people to properly educate their children, who have grown up and
started voting.
Have fun!
Cindy Hamilton
> How's Democratic Governor Granholm doing for Michigan? Or Democratic
> US Senators Debbie Stabenow and your other Democratic Senator Comb
> over doing for Michigan? Have they put you back to work yet?
Politicians have nearly no control over businesses, yet you seem to
think
they are to blame. It has taken decades to create the problem; it
will
probably take decades of disciplined effort on the part of business to
fix it.
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
> On 2009-07-05, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In message <_7GdnTGugdyjQ9LXnZ2dnUVZ_uOdn...@speakeasy.net>,
> > russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
> >>No one would worry about the debtor's
> >>prisons until the meltdown came, at which point it'd be too late.
>
> > If no one was worried about them, then how come we no longer have
> > them?
>
> Simple economic calculation. Locking a person up cost even more money
> on top of what they already owed.
Bernie Maddoff, anyone?
Sorry loser.
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
> "Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy"
> messagenews:611e1160-5811-4158...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Yeah; the democrats seem to have a lock on those who have single digit
IQs, as you are proving so well.
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
Odd, considering you're far dumber than most republicans.
Sanity
"Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy"
<TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
message
I'm smart enough to NOT be a repub. Can't say the same thing for you.
If there wasn't BAD, how would we know what was GOOD?
If there wasn't UGLY, how would we know what was BEAUTY?
If there wasn't REPUBLICANS, how would we know STUPIDITY?
Rod Speed
> Charlie <cvarric...@aol.com> wrote
>> How's Democratic Governor Granholm doing for Michigan? Or Democratic
>> US Senators Debbie Stabenow and your other Democratic Senator Comb
>> over doing for Michigan? Have they put you back to work yet?
> Politicians have nearly no control over businesses,
Thats just plain wrong. The most obvious control over businesses is interest rates.
> yet you seem to think they are to blame.
They clearly are for the mess that california is currently in.
And for the complete implosion of the entire world financial system too.
> It has taken decades to create the problem;
No it hasnt.
> it will probably take decades of disciplined effort on the part of business to fix it.
Bet it doesnt either.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Scott in SoCal wrote
>>> Doob Aye <doo...@doobie.aye.aye> wrote
>>>> Abandoned cars are beginning to pile up at Dubai International Airport
>>>> as overextended expatriates flee. Dubai throws debtors in the pokey
>>> Something the US should seriously consider.
>> Nope.
>>> If we still had debtor's prisons, we would not
>>> be in a complete financial meltdown right now.
>> Have fun explaining how come we did see complete financial
>> meltdowns just as bad or worse when there were still debtors prisons.
>>>> 3,000 cars are reportedly stockpiled at the airport so far, and
>>>> with reports of 1,500 visas a day being cancelled, there may be
>>>> a lot of dusty, cut rate luxury cars available for closeout prices.
>>> They might be cheap to purchase, but the shipping costs would kill ya. :)
>> Shipping isnt as expensive as you might expect.
> Importing a late model ROW vehicle into the US might range from difficult
> to impossible, however, due to different safety/lighting/ etc. standards.
Not really, essentially because the manufacturers who want to be able
to sell cars in the US have already ensured that they comply with those.
Sure, there certainly are a few obscure cars that cant be used in the US
but its unlikely that too many of those have been abandoned at Dubai airport.
> You'd think that all you'd have to do would be to change
> the headlights and speedometer, but it's often not that easy.
Much more often no change whatever is required.
> Otherwise, one could set up a nice little business selling off abandoned cars...
We do in fact see a considerable business that involves the
theft of cars in one country and the resale of them in others.
> I'm sure there's lots of people who'd like to have dirt cheap decent vehicles.
Yes, but most dont realise that the shipping costs can be quite reasonable.
After all, those cars must have been shipped to Dubai in the first place.
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
> "Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy"
> messagenews:76295e87-e256-4129...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 6, 12:47 pm, "Sanity" <san...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Sanity" <san...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:h2t65m$o26$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > >SNIP<
>
> > >>With the level of brain damage demonstrated by your exemplary grammar,
> > >>it is quite understandable why you're a democrat.
>
> > > I could have been a Republican but then they discovered I had a double
> > > digit IQ
>
> > Of course I forgot to mention that double digit IQ made me over qualified
> > to
> > be in the Republican party.
> >Odd, considering you're far dumber than most republicans.
>
> I'm smart enough to NOT be a repub. Can't say the same thing for you.
> If there wasn't BAD, how would we know what was GOOD?
> If there wasn't UGLY, how would we know what was BEAUTY?
> If there wasn't REPUBLICANS, how would we know STUPIDITY?
I'm not stupid enough to vote for a career politician who campaigns on
the false premise of "change."
"Hope" you'll have some "change" left when this shit is over. LMAO.
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
> On Jul 5, 12:51 pm, Charlie <cvarric...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > How's Democratic Governor Granholm doing for Michigan? Or Democratic
> > US Senators Debbie Stabenow and your other Democratic Senator Comb
> > over doing for Michigan? Have they put you back to work yet?
>
> Politicians have nearly no control over businesses, yet you seem to
> think
You're retarded. Clinton & Bush Sr. devastated a large number of local
manufacturing facilities in their tenures, all the while the rest of
the nation looked away like nothing was going on.
Which is why I'm GLAD this country is failing the way it is. Perhaps
utter devastation to the majority's standard of living will FINALLY
motivate the populace to pull their heads out of their asses; it might
not be too late to save the old gal.
Sanity
"Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy"
message
news:c0f5f1d8-d729-41e7...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
I survived Bush/Cheney and their cohorts, I can survive anything.
Brent
Maddoff isn't a debtor, he's a fraudster. (oddly enough the same sort of
fraud that the US federal government runs, but we're not supposed to
notice that)
Matthew Russotto
Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 5, 12:51=A0pm, Charlie <cvarric...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> How's Democratic Governor Granholm doing for Michigan? Or Democratic
>> US Senators Debbie Stabenow and your other Democratic Senator Comb
>> over doing for Michigan? Have they put you back to work yet?
>
>Politicians have nearly no control over businesses, yet you seem to
>think they are to blame.
Politicians don't raise taxes, enact vexatious regulations, zoning
laws, outright bans on certain business activities, and did I mention
raise taxes?
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
Good point; thanks for the correction (on both points <grin>).
Cindy Hamilton
wrote:
> In article <a1606674-24ad-44b0-9db6-764e1d251...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 5, 12:51=A0pm, Charlie <cvarric...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> How's Democratic Governor Granholm doing for Michigan? Or Democratic
> >> US Senators Debbie Stabenow and your other Democratic Senator Comb
> >> over doing for Michigan? Have they put you back to work yet?
>
> >Politicians have nearly no control over businesses, yet you seem to
> >think they are to blame.
>
> Politicians don't raise taxes, enact vexatious regulations, zoning
> laws, outright bans on certain business activities, and did I mention
> raise taxes?
Apparently, politicians can ruin businesses but cannot fix them. It's
still
unreasonable to expect the politicians mentioned above to solve the
problems that businessmen and financiers created for themselves.
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
wrote:
> On Jul 7, 9:23 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
> wrote:
>
> > In article <a1606674-24ad-44b0-9db6-764e1d251...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Jul 5, 12:51=A0pm, Charlie <cvarric...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> How's Democratic Governor Granholm doing for Michigan? Or Democratic
> > >> US Senators Debbie Stabenow and your other Democratic Senator Comb
> > >> over doing for Michigan? Have they put you back to work yet?
>
> > >Politicians have nearly no control over businesses, yet you seem to
> > >think they are to blame.
>
> > Politicians don't raise taxes, enact vexatious regulations, zoning
> > laws, outright bans on certain business activities, and did I mention
> > raise taxes?
>
> Apparently, politicians can ruin businesses but cannot fix them. It's
> still
> unreasonable to expect the politicians mentioned above to solve the
> problems that businessmen and financiers created for themselves.
Yes, but it's VERY reasonable to expect presidents not to destroy
domestic jobs. Unfortunately we've seen none of that reasoning with
respect to the Bushes or Clinton, for that matter. Unfortunately, I
don't think Obama's bringing the right solution to the table.
charliekilo
message
news:67923517-05e1-4d3d...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 7, 10:49 am, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 7, 9:23 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <a1606674-24ad-44b0-9db6-764e1d251...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Jul 5, 12:51=A0pm, Charlie <cvarric...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> How's Democratic Governor Granholm doing for Michigan? Or Democratic
> > >> US Senators Debbie Stabenow and your other Democratic Senator Comb
> > >> over doing for Michigan? Have they put you back to work yet?
>
> > >Politicians have nearly no control over businesses, yet you seem to
> > >think they are to blame.
>
> > Politicians don't raise taxes, enact vexatious regulations, zoning
> > laws, outright bans on certain business activities, and did I mention
> > raise taxes?
>
> Apparently, politicians can ruin businesses but cannot fix them. It's
> still
> unreasonable to expect the politicians mentioned above to solve the
> problems that businessmen and financiers created for themselves.
-- Yes, but it's VERY reasonable to expect presidents not to destroy
-- domestic jobs. Unfortunately we've seen none of that reasoning with
-- respect to the Bushes or Clinton, for that matter. Unfortunately, I
-- don't think Obama's bringing the right solution to the table.
Ya think?! Obama has been proposing every "solution" that will kill jobs or
chase them overseas. For example, Cap & Trade would kill any manufacturing
and transoprtation jobs.
Matthew Russotto
Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 7, 9:23=A0am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article <a1606674-24ad-44b0-9db6-764e1d251...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Cindy Hamilton =A0<angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 5, 12:51=3DA0pm, Charlie <cvarric...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> How's Democratic Governor Granholm doing for Michigan? Or Democratic
>> >> US Senators Debbie Stabenow and your other Democratic Senator Comb
>> >> over doing for Michigan? Have they put you back to work yet?
>>
>> >Politicians have nearly no control over businesses, yet you seem to
>> >think they are to blame.
>>
>> Politicians don't raise taxes, enact vexatious regulations, zoning
>> laws, outright bans on certain business activities, and did I mention
>> raise taxes?
>
>Apparently, politicians can ruin businesses but cannot fix them.
They're certainly much better at ruining them. But then, to be fair,
it's generally much easier to break something than to repair it.
>It's still unreasonable to expect the politicians mentioned above to
>solve the problems that businessmen and financiers created for themselves.
For themselves? No, a cock-up of this magnitude had the participation
of politicians and bureaucrats as well as businessmen and financiers.
Rod Speed
> russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote
>> Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Charlie <cvarric...@aol.com> wrote
>>>> How's Democratic Governor Granholm doing for Michigan?
>>>> Or Democratic US Senators Debbie Stabenow and your
>>>> other Democratic Senator Comb over doing for Michigan?
>>>> Have they put you back to work yet?
>>> Politicians have nearly no control over businesses, yet you seem to think they are to blame.
>> Politicians don't raise taxes, enact vexatious regulations, zoning laws,
>> outright bans on certain business activities, and did I mention raise taxes?
> Apparently, politicians can ruin businesses but cannot fix them.
Thats wrong too, most obviously with Chrysler the first time around
and the tax cuts that produced the longest boom in recorded history
that has just come to an end. Very low interest rates produced one
hell of a real estate bubble that produced quite a few viable businesses.
> It's still unreasonable to expect the politicians mentioned above to solve
> the problems that businessmen and financiers created for themselves.
They can however put the regulations in place that prevent the worst
excesses of businessment and financiers from imploding the economy.
Not one of the canadian or australian retail banks imploded spectacularly,
or even needed to be bailed out by govt. And both of those have much
bigger retail banks in market share than the US has too.
The other obvious example is antitrust and anti monopoly law.
And some like the germans have made some industrys viable just by having
decent feed in tarriffs that make small scale private power generation viable too.
Rod Speed
It wouldnt kill the aircraft industry or pharmaceuticals or movies or
TV shows or music or PC software or the net or medicine etc etc etc.
N8N
>
> - Show quoted text -
not quite as easy as you make it out to be:
http://foreignborn.com/visas_imm/entering_us/7importingyourcar.htm
now, there's an exception for vehicles over 25? I think? years old,
which may be imported without restriction, but I doubt that's what
we're talking about here.
nate
Matthew Russotto
Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>It wouldnt kill the aircraft industry or pharmaceuticals or movies or
>TV shows or music or PC software or the net or medicine etc etc etc.
Aircraft: Yes, aircraft manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
Pharma: Depends, is Puerto Rico included in cap&trade?
Movies: By driving the price of electricity up even higher, more and
more movies would be driven to other venues.
Medicine: No, the health plan is designed to kill that.
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
> "Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy"
> messagenews:67923517-05e1-4d3d...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
I also believe that if he starts taxing the upper class at a higher
rate, they just may decide to take their toys and go play elsewhere.
Hope they didn't get that money as a result of being an employer;
there will be even more unemployment to spread around!
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
> charliekilo wrote:
> > "Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy"
No impact on PC software? ROTFLMAO! How clueless are you? Have you
noticed how much outsourcing for IT is done already (hint; it's done
as a cost saving measure, as American labor is just too $$$)? Have you
noticed how much more active in software development that the Chinese
and Indians have become?
Rod Speed
>>> Cindy Hamilton angelicapagane...@yahoo.com wrote
>>>> russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote
>>>>>>> How's Democratic Governor Granholm doing for Michigan? Or
>>>>>>> Democratic US Senators Debbie Stabenow and your other Democratic
>>>>>>> Senator Comb over doing for Michigan? Have they put you back to work yet?
>>>>>> Politicians have nearly no control over businesses, yet you seem
>>>>>> to think they are to blame.
>>>>> Politicians don't raise taxes, enact vexatious regulations, zoning
>>>>> laws, outright bans on certain business activities, and did I
>>>>> mention raise taxes?
>>>> Apparently, politicians can ruin businesses but cannot fix them. It's still
>>>> unreasonable to expect the politicians mentioned above to solve the
>>>> problems that businessmen and financiers created for themselves.
>>> -- Yes, but it's VERY reasonable to expect presidents not to destroy
>>> -- domestic jobs. Unfortunately we've seen none of that reasoning
>>> with -- respect to the Bushes or Clinton, for that matter.
>>> Unfortunately, I -- don't think Obama's bringing the right solution to the table.
>>> Ya think?! Obama has been proposing every "solution" that will kill
>>> jobs or chase them overseas. For example, Cap & Trade would kill
>>> any manufacturing and transoprtation jobs.
>> It wouldnt kill the aircraft industry or pharmaceuticals or movies or
>> TV shows or music or PC software or the net or medicine etc etc etc.
>
> No impact on PC software?
I JUST said it wouldnt KILL JOBS THERE, fuckwit.
> ROTFLMAO! How clueless are you?
Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
> Have you noticed how much outsourcing for IT is done already (hint;
> it's done as a cost saving measure, as American labor is just too $$$)?
So a cap and trade would make no difference to that industry, fuckwit.
> Have you noticed how much more active in software
> development that the Chinese and Indians have become?
Irrelevant to what a cap and trade would do to that industry, fuckwit.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> charliekilo wrote
>>> Cap & Trade would kill any manufacturing and transoprtation jobs.
>> It wouldnt kill the aircraft industry or pharmaceuticals or movies or
>> TV shows or music or PC software or the net or medicine etc etc etc.
> Aircraft: Yes, aircraft manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
Still wouldnt be KILLED by cap and trade, just increase the cost of aircraft.
> Pharma: Depends, is Puerto Rico included in cap&trade?
Wouldnt be KILLED regardless.
> Movies: By driving the price of electricity up even higher, more
> and more movies would be driven to other venues.
But that industry wouldnt be KILLED.
> Medicine: No, the health plan is designed to kill that.
Mindlessly silly.
Rod Speed
>>>> Nope.
> not quite as easy as you make it out to be:
Wrong.
> http://foreignborn.com/visas_imm/entering_us/7importingyourcar.htm
Thats just the US. Plenty of other country have much more of a clue.
And like I said, most cars are manufactured to satisfy the US standards requirements.
> now, there's an exception for vehicles over 25? I think? years old,
> which may be imported without restriction, but I doubt that's what
> we're talking about here.
Sure, but there are hordes that already comply with US standards.
Brent
Government interferes favoring some businesses/people over others. The
fiancial mess that was created was the direct result of central banking,
central banking exists because of government power. The policies of
central banks often reflect the desires of those in political office as
well.
Then there are the problems created when governments are sucking the
capital out of an economy to spend on wars, social programs, and so on.
Matthew Russotto
Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> charliekilo wrote
>
>>>> Cap & Trade would kill any manufacturing and transoprtation jobs.
>
>>> It wouldnt kill the aircraft industry or pharmaceuticals or movies or
>>> TV shows or music or PC software or the net or medicine etc etc etc.
>
>> Aircraft: Yes, aircraft manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
>
>Still wouldnt be KILLED by cap and trade, just increase the cost of aircraft.
It would move manufacture to other countries. It might actually kill
Boeing's commercial side.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> charliekilo wrote
>>>>> Cap & Trade would kill any manufacturing and transoprtation jobs.
>>>> It wouldnt kill the aircraft industry or pharmaceuticals or movies or TV
>>>> shows or music or PC software or the net or medicine etc etc etc.
>>> Aircraft: Yes, aircraft manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
>> Still wouldnt be KILLED by cap and trade, just increase the cost of aircraft.
> It would move manufacture to other countries.
Nope, for the same reason that hardly anyone
in the west bothers with the output of bollywood.
> It might actually kill Boeing's commercial side.
Nope. It would certainly have some impact on the
sales of aircraft, but they wouldnt be killed completely.
People would still have to fly, albeit at higher fare costs.
Matthew Russotto
Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> charliekilo wrote
>
>>>>>> Cap & Trade would kill any manufacturing and transoprtation jobs.
>
>>>>> It wouldnt kill the aircraft industry or pharmaceuticals or movies or TV
>>>>> shows or music or PC software or the net or medicine etc etc etc.
>
>>>> Aircraft: Yes, aircraft manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
>
>>> Still wouldnt be KILLED by cap and trade, just increase the cost of aircraft.
>
>> It would move manufacture to other countries.
>
>Nope, for the same reason that hardly anyone
>in the west bothers with the output of bollywood.
Fuck Bollywood, I'm talking about American studios moving production
elsewhere; they already do a lot in Canada and Mexico's not far either.
>> It might actually kill Boeing's commercial side.
>
>Nope. It would certainly have some impact on the
>sales of aircraft, but they wouldnt be killed completely.
There are competitors to Boeing who aren't under the same constraints.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> charliekilo wrote
>>>>>>> Cap & Trade would kill any manufacturing and transoprtation jobs.
>>>>>> It wouldnt kill the aircraft industry or pharmaceuticals or movies or TV
>>>>>> shows or music or PC software or the net or medicine etc etc etc.
>>>>> Aircraft: Yes, aircraft manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
>>>> Still wouldnt be KILLED by cap and trade, just increase the cost of aircraft.
>>> It would move manufacture to other countries.
>> Nope, for the same reason that hardly anyone
>> in the west bothers with the output of bollywood.
> Fuck Bollywood, I'm talking about American studios moving production
> elsewhere; they already do a lot in Canada and Mexico's not far either.
And have always done for various reasons. You wouldnt see much of that extra,
essentially because there are real downsides for them with that approach.
And the viable destinations for that work will likely have cap and trade anyway.
>>> It might actually kill Boeing's commercial side.
>> Nope. It would certainly have some impact on the
>> sales of aircraft, but they wouldnt be killed completely.
> There are competitors to Boeing who aren't under the same constraints.
Wrong. Europe has had a cap and trade system for quite a while now.
And that has not killed Airbus. If anything it would have more
of an impact on Airbus because they stupidly make bits of their
planes all over the place and ship them to France for assembly.
charliekilo
news:_tidnZVVXIrET8nX...@speakeasy.net...
Boeing already has a good working relationship with China...they'd have no
problem moving the manufacturing there.
charliekilo
news:7bk7rcF...@mid.individual.net...
> Matthew Russotto wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> charliekilo wrote
>
>>>>>>>> Cap & Trade would kill any manufacturing and transoprtation jobs.
>
>>>>>>> It wouldnt kill the aircraft industry or pharmaceuticals or movies
>>>>>>> or TV
>>>>>>> shows or music or PC software or the net or medicine etc etc etc.
>
>>>>>> Aircraft: Yes, aircraft manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
>
>>>>> Still wouldnt be KILLED by cap and trade, just increase the cost of
>>>>> aircraft.
>
>>>> It would move manufacture to other countries.
>
>>> Nope, for the same reason that hardly anyone
>>> in the west bothers with the output of bollywood.
>
>> Fuck Bollywood, I'm talking about American studios moving production
>> elsewhere; they already do a lot in Canada and Mexico's not far either.
>
> And have always done for various reasons. You wouldnt see much of that
> extra,
> essentially because there are real downsides for them with that approach.
Those "various reasons" as you suggest revolve around one issue 98% of the
time...tax incentives (as in lower taxes and/or rebates)...that and an
exchange rate advantage.
> And the viable destinations for that work will likely have cap and trade
> anyway.
>
>>>> It might actually kill Boeing's commercial side.
>
>>> Nope. It would certainly have some impact on the
>>> sales of aircraft, but they wouldnt be killed completely.
>
>> There are competitors to Boeing who aren't under the same constraints.
>
> Wrong. Europe has had a cap and trade system for quite a while now.
>
> And that has not killed Airbus. If anything it would have more
> of an impact on Airbus because they stupidly make bits of their
> planes all over the place and ship them to France for assembly.
Airbus also receive large government subsidies in order to remain
"competitive." The U.S. actually brought a WTO suit against Airbus over
their subsidies.
Rod Speed
> Matthew Russotto <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> charliekilo wrote
>>>>>>>> Cap & Trade would kill any manufacturing and transoprtation jobs.
>>>>>>> It wouldnt kill the aircraft industry or pharmaceuticals or movies or TV
>>>>>>> shows or music or PC software or the net or medicine etc etc etc.
>>>>>> Aircraft: Yes, aircraft manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
>>>>> Still wouldnt be KILLED by cap and trade, just increase the cost of aircraft.
>>>> It would move manufacture to other countries.
>>> Nope, for the same reason that hardly anyone
>>> in the west bothers with the output of bollywood.
>> Fuck Bollywood, I'm talking about American studios moving production
>> elsewhere; they already do a lot in Canada and Mexico's not far either.
>>>> It might actually kill Boeing's commercial side.
>>> Nope. It would certainly have some impact on the
>>> sales of aircraft, but they wouldnt be killed completely.
>> There are competitors to Boeing who aren't under the same constraints.
> Boeing already has a good working relationship with China...
Fuck all of what they make is made there.
> they'd have no problem moving the manufacturing there.
Just a few tiny problems with quality control etc.
Cap and trade has been in europe for quite a while now and
we havent seen all Airbus jobs move to china as a result of that.
So that wouldnt happen with Boeing either.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> charliekilo wrote
>>>>>>>>> Cap & Trade would kill any manufacturing and transoprtation jobs.
Have fun explaining why it hasnt with western europe thats had it for quite a while now.
>>>>>>>> It wouldnt kill the aircraft industry or pharmaceuticals or movies or TV
>>>>>>>> shows or music or PC software or the net or medicine etc etc etc.
>>>>>>> Aircraft: Yes, aircraft manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
>>>>>> Still wouldnt be KILLED by cap and trade, just increase the cost of aircraft.
>>>>> It would move manufacture to other countries.
>>>> Nope, for the same reason that hardly anyone
>>>> in the west bothers with the output of bollywood.
>>> Fuck Bollywood, I'm talking about American studios moving production
>>> elsewhere; they already do a lot in Canada and Mexico's not far either.
>> And have always done for various reasons. You wouldnt see much of that extra,
>> essentially because there are real downsides for them with that approach.
> Those "various reasons" as you suggest revolve around one issue 98% of the time...tax incentives (as in lower taxes
> and/or rebates)...that and an exchange rate advantage.
Wrong again, most of the time its done for the scenery etc.
If it really was for the reasons you list, it would all be done in Bollywood and it aint.
>> And the viable destinations for that work will likely have cap and trade anyway.
>>>>> It might actually kill Boeing's commercial side.
>>>> Nope. It would certainly have some impact on the
>>>> sales of aircraft, but they wouldnt be killed completely.
>>> There are competitors to Boeing who aren't under the same constraints.
>> Wrong. Europe has had a cap and trade system for quite a while now.
>> And that has not killed Airbus. If anything it would have more
>> of an impact on Airbus because they stupidly make bits of their
>> planes all over the place and ship them to France for assembly.
> Airbus also receive large government subsidies in order to remain "competitive." The U.S. actually brought a WTO suit
> against Airbus over their subsidies.
Still havent seen cap and trade kill airbus, so your original is just plain silly.
It hasnt killed the german car industry either, and that doesnt get govt subsidys.
charliekilo
Boeing isn't government subsidized (yet) like Airbus. Boeing would be free
to leave the mainland for China...the EU *keeps* Airbus in the EU
charliekilo
I guess I don't know my own business....
> If it really was for the reasons you list, it would all be done in
> Bollywood and it aint.
Much cheaper to go to Canada than India plus there are other
considerations...language and climate to name two.
>>> And the viable destinations for that work will likely have cap and trade
>>> anyway.
>
>>>>>> It might actually kill Boeing's commercial side.
>
>>>>> Nope. It would certainly have some impact on the
>>>>> sales of aircraft, but they wouldnt be killed completely.
>
>>>> There are competitors to Boeing who aren't under the same constraints.
>
>>> Wrong. Europe has had a cap and trade system for quite a while now.
Since 2005 and they've had unemployment rates inthe low teens while we were
in the upper 4 and lower 5's
>>> And that has not killed Airbus. If anything it would have more
>>> of an impact on Airbus because they stupidly make bits of their
>>> planes all over the place and ship them to France for assembly.
>
>> Airbus also receive large government subsidies in order to remain
>> "competitive." The U.S. actually brought a WTO suit against Airbus over
>> their subsidies.
>
> Still havent seen cap and trade kill airbus, so your original is just
> plain silly.
They (Airbus) are government subsidized so free market constraints don't
apply.
> It hasnt killed the german car industry either, and that doesnt get govt
> subsidys.
Although I own two German cars, I don't know the industry well enough to
address.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> charliekilo wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> charliekilo wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Cap & Trade would kill any manufacturing and transoprtation jobs.
>> Have fun explaining why it hasnt with western europe thats had it for quite a while now.
Clearly you cant do that.
>>>>>>>>>> It wouldnt kill the aircraft industry or pharmaceuticals or movies or TV
>>>>>>>>>> shows or music or PC software or the net or medicine etc etc etc.
>>>>>>>>> Aircraft: Yes, aircraft manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
>>>>>>>> Still wouldnt be KILLED by cap and trade, just increase the cost of aircraft.
>>>>>>> It would move manufacture to other countries.
>>>>>> Nope, for the same reason that hardly anyone
>>>>>> in the west bothers with the output of bollywood.
>>>>> Fuck Bollywood, I'm talking about American studios moving
>>>>> production elsewhere; they already do a lot in Canada and
>>>>> Mexico's not far either.
>>>> And have always done for various reasons. You wouldnt see much of that extra,
>>>> essentially because there are real downsides for them with that approach.
>>> Those "various reasons" as you suggest revolve around one issue 98% of the time...tax incentives (as in lower taxes
>>> and
>>> /or rebates)...that and an exchange rate advantage.
>> Wrong again, most of the time its done for the scenery etc.
> I guess I don't know my own business....
What the fuck has that got to do with anything ?
>> If it really was for the reasons you list, it would all be done in Bollywood and it aint.
> Much cheaper to go to Canada than India plus there are other considerations...language and climate to name two.
So your tax incentives claim is just plain wrong.
>>>> And the viable destinations for that work will likely have cap and trade anyway.
>>>>>>> It might actually kill Boeing's commercial side.
>>>>>> Nope. It would certainly have some impact on the
>>>>>> sales of aircraft, but they wouldnt be killed completely.
>>>>> There are competitors to Boeing who aren't under the same constraints.
>>>> Wrong. Europe has had a cap and trade system for quite a while now.
> Since 2005 and they've had unemployment rates inthe low teens while we were in the upper 4 and lower 5's
They had that LONG before they had any cap and trade.
>>>> And that has not killed Airbus. If anything it would have more
>>>> of an impact on Airbus because they stupidly make bits of their
>>>> planes all over the place and ship them to France for assembly.
>>> Airbus also receive large government subsidies in order to remain "competitive." The U.S. actually brought a WTO
>>> suit against Airbus over their subsidies.
>> Still havent seen cap and trade kill airbus, so your original is just plain silly.
> They (Airbus) are government subsidized so free market constraints don't apply.
Corse they do when they have to sell into the same market that Boeing does.
>> It hasnt killed the german car industry either, and that doesnt get govt subsidys.
> Although I own two German cars, I don't know the industry well enough to address.
You dont know the other industrys well enough either.
Or the basics of the effect of cap and trade are either.
Or even what has happened with european unemployment rates LONG before any cap and trade either.
Rod Speed
Wrong. Its actually MORE subsidised than Airbus by the US military spending.
> Boeing would be free to leave the mainland for China...
And wouldnt be that stupid.
> the EU *keeps* Airbus in the EU
Another pig ignorant lie. They manufacture quite a bit outside the EU already.
charliekilo
I'm in the film and television industy...have been for 12 years as a partner
in a boutique i-bank that has an entertainment division as part of our
practice.
charliekilo
That's not a subsidy
>> Boeing would be free to leave the mainland for China...
>
> And wouldnt be that stupid.
Not if the cost of doing business inthe U.S. became too great and they
weren't able to be competitive.
>> the EU *keeps* Airbus in the EU
>
> Another pig ignorant lie. They manufacture quite a bit outside the EU
> already.
Pulled from Hoover's: Based in Toulouse, FR with final assembly production
in Toulouse, Hamburg, Germany, Seville, Spain and as of March 2009, China.
Airbus has engineering, communication and design subsidiaries located in the
United States and Japan. (but no manufacturing).
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> charliekilo wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> charliekilo wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Matthew Russotto wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> charliekilo wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cap & Trade would kill any manufacturing and transoprtation jobs.
>>>> Have fun explaining why it hasnt with western europe thats had it for quite a while now.
>> Clearly you cant do that.
And still cant.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldnt kill the aircraft industry or pharmaceuticals or movies or TV
>>>>>>>>>>>> shows or music or PC software or the net or medicine etc etc etc.
>>>>>>>>>>> Aircraft: Yes, aircraft manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
>>>>>>>>>> Still wouldnt be KILLED by cap and trade, just increase the cost of aircraft.
>>>>>>>>> It would move manufacture to other countries.
>>>>>>>> Nope, for the same reason that hardly anyone
>>>>>>>> in the west bothers with the output of bollywood.
>>>>>>> Fuck Bollywood, I'm talking about American studios moving
>>>>>>> production elsewhere; they already do a lot in Canada and
>>>>>>> Mexico's not far either.
>>>>>> And have always done for various reasons. You wouldnt see much of that extra,
>>>>>> essentially because there are real downsides for them with that approach.
>>>>> Those "various reasons" as you suggest revolve around one issue 98% of the time...tax incentives (as in lower
>>>>> taxes and/or rebates)...that and an exchange rate advantage.
>>>> Wrong again, most of the time its done for the scenery etc.
>>> I guess I don't know my own business....
>> What the fuck has that got to do with anything ?
> I'm in the film and television industy...
And are so stupid that you havent even noticed that the cap
and trade that western europe has had for years now has
NOT killed their television industry or done anything like that.
> have been for 12 years as a partner in a boutique i-bank that has an entertainment division as part of our practice.
And are so stupid that you havent even noticed that the cap
and trade that western europe has had for years now has
NOT killed their television industry or done anything like that.
>>>> If it really was for the reasons you list, it would all be done in Bollywood and it aint.
>>> Much cheaper to go to Canada than India plus there are other considerations...language and climate to name two.
>> So your tax incentives claim is just plain wrong.
>>>>>> And the viable destinations for that work will likely have cap and trade anyway.
>>>>>>>>> It might actually kill Boeing's commercial side.
>>>>>>>> Nope. It would certainly have some impact on the
>>>>>>>> sales of aircraft, but they wouldnt be killed completely.
>>>>>>> There are competitors to Boeing who aren't under the same constraints.
>>>>>> Wrong. Europe has had a cap and trade system for quite a while now.
>>> Since 2005 and they've had unemployment rates in the low teens while we were in the upper 4 and lower 5's
>> They had that LONG before they had any cap and trade.
And quite a bit of western europe had upper 4 and lower 5s since cap and trade too.
charliekilo
That wasn't the point of this portion of the discussion...it was about the
reason for film going off or near-shore versus shooting in the U.S....I said
it was a cost basis and that other countries offer tax incentives.
>> have been for 12 years as a partner in a boutique i-bank that has an
>> entertainment division as part of our practice.
>
> And are so stupid that you havent even noticed that the cap
> and trade that western europe has had for years now has
> NOT killed their television industry or done anything like that.
>
>>>>> If it really was for the reasons you list, it would all be done in
>>>>> Bollywood and it aint.
>
>>>> Much cheaper to go to Canada than India plus there are other
>>>> considerations...language and climate to name two.
>
>>> So your tax incentives claim is just plain wrong.
>
>>>>>>> And the viable destinations for that work will likely have cap and
>>>>>>> trade anyway.
>
>>>>>>>>>> It might actually kill Boeing's commercial side.
>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. It would certainly have some impact on the
>>>>>>>>> sales of aircraft, but they wouldnt be killed completely.
>
>>>>>>>> There are competitors to Boeing who aren't under the same
>>>>>>>> constraints.
>
>>>>>>> Wrong. Europe has had a cap and trade system for quite a while now.
>
>>>> Since 2005 and they've had unemployment rates in the low teens while we
>>>> were in the upper 4 and lower 5's
>
>>> They had that LONG before they had any cap and trade.
>
> And quite a bit of western europe had upper 4 and lower 5s since cap and
> trade too.
Where? If true, I'm guessing in "New Europe" where the cost and barriers are
much lower than "old" Europe.
>>>>>>> And that has not killed Airbus. If anything it would have more
>>>>>>> of an impact on Airbus because they stupidly make bits of their
>>>>>>> planes all over the place and ship them to France for assembly.
>
>>>>>> Airbus also receive large government subsidies in order to remain
>>>>>> "competitive." The U.S. actually brought a WTO suit against
>>>>>> Airbus over their subsidies.
>
>>>>> Still havent seen cap and trade kill airbus, so your original is just
>>>>> plain silly.
>
>>>> They (Airbus) are government subsidized so free market constraints
>>>> don't apply.
>
>>> Corse they do when they have to sell into the same market that Boeing
>>> does.
>
>>>>> It hasnt killed the german car industry either, and that doesnt get
>>>>> govt subsidys.
>
>>>> Although I own two German cars, I don't know the industry well enough
>>>> to address.
>
>>> You dont know the other industrys well enough either.
>
>>> Or the basics of the effect of cap and trade are either.
>
>>> Or even what has happened with european unemployment rates LONG before
>>> any cap and trade either.
I have to run to catch a plane so I'm checking out for the evening....
Rod Speed
Corse it is. Because that can only be spent on US manufacture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus#World_Trade_Organization_litigation
>>> Boeing would be free to leave the mainland for China...
>> And wouldnt be that stupid.
> Not if the cost of doing business inthe U.S. became too great and they weren't able to be competitive.
Corse that wouldnt happen when Airbus HAS BEEN OPERATING
UNDER A CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM FOR YEARS NOW.
>>> the EU *keeps* Airbus in the EU
>> Another pig ignorant lie. They manufacture quite a bit outside the EU already.
> Pulled from Hoover's: Based in Toulouse, FR with final assembly
> production in Toulouse, Hamburg, Germany, Seville, Spain and as of
> March 2009, China. Airbus has engineering, communication and design
> subsidiaries located in the United States and Japan. (but no manufacturing).
Its just plain wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus#Workforce_by_sites
Rod Speed
>> And still cant.
You're lying now. Your original stupid pig ignorant
claim is STILL there in the quoting right at the top.
> it was about the reason for film going off or near-shore versus shooting in the U.S....
Fuck all of that happens with the television industry.
> I said it was a cost basis and that other countries offer tax incentives.
And that is completely irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim
still right at the top which is what was actually being discussed.
>>> have been for 12 years as a partner in a boutique i-bank that has an entertainment division as part of our
>>> practice.
>> And are so stupid that you havent even noticed that the cap
>> and trade that western europe has had for years now has
>> NOT killed their television industry or done anything like that.
>>>>>> If it really was for the reasons you list, it would all be done
>>>>>> in Bollywood and it aint.
>>>>> Much cheaper to go to Canada than India plus there are other
>>>>> considerations...language and climate to name two.
>>>> So your tax incentives claim is just plain wrong.
>>>>>>>> And the viable destinations for that work will likely have cap and trade anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>> It might actually kill Boeing's commercial side.
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. It would certainly have some impact on the
>>>>>>>>>> sales of aircraft, but they wouldnt be killed completely.
>>>>>>>>> There are competitors to Boeing who aren't under the same constraints.
>>>>>>>> Wrong. Europe has had a cap and trade system for quite a while now.
>>>>> Since 2005 and they've had unemployment rates in the low teens
>>>>> while we were in the upper 4 and lower 5's
>>>> They had that LONG before they had any cap and trade.
>> And quite a bit of western europe had upper 4 and lower 5s since cap and trade too.
> Where?
http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/unemployment_rate_2008_0.html
> If true, I'm guessing in "New Europe"
Wrong, as always.
> where the cost and barriers are much lower than "old" Europe.
Pity most of them are actually old europe.
>>>>>>>> And that has not killed Airbus. If anything it would have more
>>>>>>>> of an impact on Airbus because they stupidly make bits of their
>>>>>>>> planes all over the place and ship them to France for assembly.
>>>>>>> Airbus also receive large government subsidies in order to
>>>>>>> remain "competitive." The U.S. actually brought a WTO suit
>>>>>>> against Airbus over their subsidies.
>>>>>> Still havent seen cap and trade kill airbus, so your original is just plain silly.
>>>>> They (Airbus) are government subsidized so free market constraints don't apply.
>>>> Corse they do when they have to sell into the same market that Boeing does.
>>>>>> It hasnt killed the german car industry either, and that doesnt get govt subsidys.
>>>>> Although I own two German cars, I don't know the industry well enough to address.
>>>> You dont know the other industrys well enough either.
>>>> Or the basics of the effect of cap and trade are either.
>>>> Or even what has happened with european unemployment rates LONG before any cap and trade either.
> I have to run to catch a plane so I'm checking out for the evening....
OK.
charliekilo
Read the entry...it supports exactly what I (Hoover's) was saying...until
2009 (when the China plant opened) all aircraft *manufacturing* was done in
the EU with parts, design, etc being done elsewhere. The first U.S. plant
will open in 2010.
I gotta go...you're just repeating yourself with partial facts bent to
support your position.
charliekilo
Dude, go up 8 to 15 lines above.... how old are you? Jus
Rod Speed
> Read the entry...
Dont need to.
> it supports exactly what I (Hoover's) was saying...
Like hell it is.
> until 2009 (when the China plant opened) all aircraft *manufacturing* was done in the EU with parts, design, etc being
> done
> elsewhere. The first U.S. plant will open in 2010.
Wrong. Thats JUST employees, not stuff they buy in from other manufacturers outside the EU.
> I gotta go...you're just repeating yourself with partial facts bent to support your position.
You're lying now.
Rod Speed
>>>> And still cant.
Dud, got back to the top and your stupid pig ignorant
claim which you STILL havent been able to substantiate.
> how old are you?
Older than you thanks. May well be older than your father too.
> Jus
Another premature ejaculation eh ?
>>> Where?
>> http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/unemployment_rate_2008_0.html
>> Wrong, as always.
Clearly doesnt have balls to fess up to having fucked that up even
more spectacularly than his bare faced pig ignorant lie right at the top.
Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy
> "Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy"
> <TedKennedyMurderedHisPregnantMistress.dwp...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
> messagenews:c0f5f1d8-d729-41e7...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 6, 2:04 pm, "Sanity" <san...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ted "I survived Chappaquiddick" Kennedy"
> > <TedKennedyMurderedHisPregnantMistress.dwp...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:76295e87-e256-4129...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 6, 12:47 pm, "Sanity" <san...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Sanity" <san...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:h2t65m$o26$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > > >SNIP<
>
> > > >>With the level of brain damage demonstrated by your exemplary grammar,
> > > >>it is quite understandable why you're a democrat.
>
> > > > I could have been a Republican but then they discovered I had a double
> > > > digit IQ
>
> > > Of course I forgot to mention that double digit IQ made me over
> > > qualified
> > > to
> > > be in the Republican party.
> > >Odd, considering you're far dumber than most republicans.
>
> > I'm smart enough to NOT be a repub. Can't say the same thing for you.
> > If there wasn't BAD, how would we know what was GOOD?
> > If there wasn't UGLY, how would we know what was BEAUTY?
> > If there wasn't REPUBLICANS, how would we know STUPIDITY?
>
> I'm not stupid enough to vote for a career politician who campaigns on
> the false premise of "change."
>
> >"Hope" you'll have some "change" left when this shit is over. LMAO.
>
> I survived Bush/Cheney and their cohorts, I can survive anything.
Cool; hope you can survive unemployment approaching twice what it was
under Bush's administration. LMAO.