On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:56:30 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

If you have a hammer made in China and a hammer made in the USA, the
price is going to be the same because the market dictates the price.

Right, and when a hammer can be made cheaper in China, it forces the
American company to lower its price (Often resulting in sharp
reductions in overhead to keep a reasonable profit margin). At some
point the American company will no longer be able to compete.


Hence the success of Wally World.

Thank you for conceding my point. And with a perfect example.


And to expand further on your point, you left out the part about the
reduction of average income of American workers as a result of lost
jobs, thereby reducing overall spending in the economy (-including-
the sales of cheap imported products), shifting more people into the
no-tax bracket and -increasing- the tax burden on everyone else.

Lessening of consumers' purchasing power causes a reduction of demand,
and therefore the prices will drop further, which then leads to
deflation, which was a very real fear a few years back. Which is one
reason why the fed chopped interest rates so much.

So
before you whine yet again about paying someone else's share of the
tax burden, take a look at where you shop.

So, I should pay more for my goods out of a perceived notion that it
will actually make a difference?

The
price is set by the lowest price that someone is will to sell it for.


Wrong. It's set, as I stated before, by the laws of supply and demand.

That's too overly simplistic.


Not according to Friedman, Lindahl, Svennilsson, Myrdal, Ohlin,
Lundberg, etc, etc. But if -you- say so then it must be true.

I'm sure that none of them put it as simply as you did. They know, as
you should, that there are many mitigating factors that also influence
where a price is set. Think about things like monopolies and economic
collusion.


Yes, what something is worth, is what
someone is willing to pay for it. And what someone is willing to pay
for depends on need (or the perception of "need"), and how available
the product is.

Now, forces of positive demand tend to force the price up, while the
forces of positive supply tend to force the price down. Competition,
acts to augment supply and therefore has a downward effect on price.
The company who sets the lowest price, is the one that the others must
match in order to remain competitive.


Gee, I guess that explains why there is such a variation in gas prices
in every town -- even within the same neighborhoods.

I see very few large variations in price in my area. In fact the
stations near me have some of the lowest prices in the state. They
follow the wholesale prices so closely that I've seen the prices
change 3 times in one day already. When one of the local stations
changes the price, the rest will follow suit in a day for two. If I
didn't know better, I'd swear there was large scale collusion.


Just because the curves intersect at one point doesn't mean the price
is fixed -- there are variations in supply -and- demand based on a
number of factors such as quality, geography, culture, perception.....
or the tactic used by some companies to flood the market with cheap
products in order to drive the competition out of business (which is
why our cars run on gasoline instead of alcohol).

No, our cars run on gasoline because the amount of energy used to
produce alcohol exceed the energy output of the finished product. As
a result, it costs more to make alcohol than we could sell it for.


Wrong again, Dave. The recommended fuel for the Model T was alcohol,

No Frank, the Model "T" had the capability to run on alcohol "as an
alternative" to gasoline. Henry Ford felt that allowing the car to run
on alcohol would sit well with local farmers who produced it. It was a
"bell and whistle" not a mandatory requirement.


and that's what automobiles were built to use back in the early years
of their history. And it was great because there were a whole bunch of
backyard stills that were pumping out gallon after gallon of good ol'
moonshine. But along came a big foreign oil company that decided to
take a risk by dumping cheap gasoline on the market (at a net loss), a
move which shut down the stills and convinced auto manufacturers to
build their engines to run only on gasoline.

Titusville Pa. (Not all that far from me) is a foreign oil company?
We were producing "cheap" oil since 1859.

We didn't start importing oil on a large scale until 1970.

Try entering "US first imported oil" into google and see what you
find.

You really should stop with the conspiracy theories Frank.....


Afterwards they pushed
the gas prices up, and the oil companies not only recovered their
losses but established a dominance of the market.

They already had a dominance of the fuel market. The cost of gasoline
was under 30 cents a gallon up until the early 70's (I used to fill
the tank on my go-kart for a dime). The prices only started rising
when we increased our dependance (and by doing so, relinquished
control of the pricing) on foreign oil. OPEC is nothing more than an
organized collusion to artificially set the price independent of
normal market forces.

Could it be......... a Monopoly?


-That's- why our
cars burn gasoline, and -that's- why we are paying so much at the
pump.

No, we use oil because oil was (and is still) cheaper to produce than
any current alternative fuel. The current high price of gasoline is
starting to entice alternative fuel producers as the gap is closing.
Perhaps those high prices are what we need to finally break free from
"Big oil's" grip. I only hope the high cost of oil doesn't break the
back of the economy first.



If, back in the early 1900's, the alcohol producers were able to stay
in business (in a fair and competitive market, protected by import
tariffs) they most likely would have developed the technology to
produce much cheaper alcohol, technology that is only -now- being
developed. We now know that fuel-grade ethanol can be produced cheaply
on a large scale using specially developed yeasts & enzymes and vacuum
distillation, but there are no 'refineries' large enough to make it
profitably.

You also discount the potential environmental impact that large scale
raw material farms, as well as the effect of production emissions and
byproducts of the process might have on pollution.

Alcohol production has improved in efficiency in the last 20 years,
but it's still more expensive than gasoline. Most of the demand for
alcohol now, is to use as a "blend" for oxygenate requirements in
gasoline as part of the clean air act, especially now that MTBE has
been banned.


Also, alcohol comes from vegetable bio-mass, meaning the
energy in alcohol comes from the sun which is both renewable and
virtually inexhaustible.

True, and also true for methane and hydrogen But none are competitive
with oil on a cost basis.



Now the US is one of the most agricultrually
efficient countries in the world; if the demand was there it wouldn't
take long to develop new types of corn or sugar beets (or some other
crop) specifically bred for high-yield alcohol production.

At the expense of feeding the population?


All this
could have happened within the past eighty years had it not been for
unfair import trade practices in the early 1900's.

We didn't "import" oil until 1970.

But it didn't, and
now -we- have to pay for the mistakes made by the government all those
years ago.

Shame Bush didn't have a grandfather who was president back then, who
you could saddle with the blame.......

Hindsight is always 20/20. We didn't know about such things as global
warming, ozone depletion, the finite availability of fossil fuel, and
the need for truly renewable fuel sources back in the early 1900's.
Oil was cheap, easy to extract, and plentiful. It was a no-brainer
back then.

Now are you so nearsighted that you can't see what's going to happen
to our progeny in the future just because you want to save a couple
bucks by buying a cheap Chinese toilet-paper dispenser?

I don't have a choice, because in most cases, there are no other
toilet paper dispensers available. I could pay more for the same
Chinese product at another store but eventually the profits end up in
the same place.

I'm not nearsighted. No, in fact, I am a realist. Like you once told
me, change is inevitable. We can't go back to what we once were, so
our best chance is to adapt to what we will become.

Or do you
-like- the idea that -we- are actually helping China become the next
globally-dominant economic superpower?

If that happens, and it seems likely, they will suffer under the same
economic pressures that affected us. And we'll have had a 100 year
head start on them on learning how to deal with it. Since the US is
the largest consumer nation on the planet, it won't do China much good
to make cheap widgets if no one here can buy them. If their own people
finally achieve some sort of social and economic freedom, and become
significant consumers, there will be a period of rapid inflation in
China, and it will no longer be so "cheap" to make things there.


Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I learned
my history, Dave. You need to go back to school.

What history did you learn Frank? What historical precedent can you
cite to apply to the current economic and energy situation that we now
face? Considering that we have never had such a level of global
economics, there is little that could be accurately compared from any
time in history to now. And you're back to making silly comparisons
like Bush and Hitler.

That is why competition is so important for a free market economy. If
there is only one source for a popular product, they can set
practically any price, and if a consumer wants it bad enough, they'll
cough up the money.


That still follows the laws of supply and demand.

No kidding.


Look as gasoline. We all bitch about the high cost
of gasoline. But we still pay it, because we need it.


Gasoline also follows the laws of supply and demand. And here is proof
that you never studied economics -- when the price fluctuates easily
in response to demand then the product is said to be "elastic";
likewise, when the demand remains relatively constant despite the
price, the product is called "inelastic".

How does that prove that I never studies economics? I never stated
otherwise.


You didn't need to -- you demonstrated it with your lack of
understanding on the subject.

Considering that most of your examples are both myopic and single
dimensional, your level of understanding is on par with the
theoretical models that they teach you in school. You know how things
are supposed to work under controlled conditions. But you can't quite
grasp the effects of variables which can be both difficult to predict,
or accurately quantify.


Oil is both elastic and inelastic depending on circumstances. When
there is a refinery fire, or a terrorist cell takes out an oil field,
or there's a labor strike in Venezuela, and the cost of gasoline goes
up, that is a result of a lowering of the supply relative to demand -
an elastic trait.

On the other hand, when the demand and the supply remain fairly
steady, and the price of oil jumps up because some clown at Goldman
Sachs predicts that oil could hit $100 a barrel, that's an increase
fueled (no pun intended) solely by investor speculation (And creating
a self fulfilling prophecy as a result), which is an inelastic trait.


Wrong again. Oil is inelastic because the -demand- remains constant
-regardless- of the price.

Demand is never constant. Demand changes with the season, economic and
social conditions around the world, and emerging technology in
developing nations. Overall, demand has been steadily increasing for
the last several years.

If you can't even grasp a simple concept
like price elasticity then you really shouldn't be talking economics.

Maybe that's your problem. You keep talking about simple concepts,
whether it be economics or electronics, while the world is hardly the
picture of simplicity that you try to paint it as.

I am talking about complex dynamics which are light years ahead of
your "simple concepts". For all the schooling you claimed to have had,
you didn't even know that we didn't start importing oil until 1970.
And there you are ready to create another (evil) corporate conspiracy
theory for which to lay the blame for our current dependance on oil.
Did they teach conspiracies in your economics class? Did your
instructor (I hesitate to use the term "professor") wear Berkinstocks
and tie his hair in a ponytail?


But I keep forgetting -- you have some intrinsic need to publically
humiliate yourself by demonstrating your ignorance.

At least I knew when we started importing oil.



Import tariffs interfere with a free -international- market,

Hello McFly! We now live in an international GLOBAL market. Get used
to it!


Nations have been trading with each other for thousands of years,
Dave. International economics isn't a new concept.

No, but multinational corporations are.


The fact is that
there is, and has always been, both an 'international' economy and a
'domestic' economy

And the line between the two has blurred considerably since you were
in "school".


(from the perspective of the US border that would
be Macro- and Micro-economics, respectively). For the past century the
international economy has been carried by the US at the expense of the
domestic economy.

I'm sure there will be those in the EU who would disagree.


But now our domestic economy simply can't carry the
financial burden of the planet much longer. It's time to quit handing
out international welfare checks, focus on -our- economy, and let the
other countries either sink or swim on their own merits.

And you call me ignorant? Do you know what the word "Symbiosis" means?
Look it up and apply it to the global economy. There is no completely
dominant autonomous entity. If any of the parts is wounded, the rest
also suffers.


and
that's the intent: when the international market starts to hurt the
domestic market, you establish import tariffs. It's been done for
hundreds of years and it works pretty darn well. And in case you
didn't notice, Toyota has offered to raise the price of their cars so
GM can stay competitive (and in business) in the domestic market. The
reason given was that low import prices hurt the American economy (the
recent GM layoffs) and is therefore bad for US/Japanese relations.
Looks like Japanese industry is looking out for American interests
better than our own government.

No, the Japanese are looking to improve their profits. If they
"voluntarily" raise their prices, then the increased profit goes
directly to Toyota. If they wait until the US government places a
tariff, then difference will go to the US government.

There is nothing altruistic about Toyota's motives, trust me.


Except that they made the announcement with an explanation that opened
the door for the US government to establish import tariffs -without-
Japanese retaliation. That takes balls. But of course their motives
are not altruistic because if GM moves it's plants to a country with
cheaper labor then it threatens to become more competitive, something
Toyota doesn't want. They also understand that the auto industry is
big business in the US, so if the industry goes under then our economy
suffers, and consequently so do the sales of -their- products in the
US. -They- know it's financially responsible to keep a trade balance.
But for some reason the Bush administration would rather let Japanese
car makers control the US economy instead of doing it themselves.

Another example of where the line between domestic or international
markets blur: Is a Toyota, based in Japan, but made in the US, with
some parts which are produced in China and Taiwan, a foreign product?
Or is a Ford car, based in Detroit, made in Canada or Mexico, with
parts from various countries, a foreign made product?


I'll make this as simple as I can: If a country outsources almost all
it's industry (like the US has done in the past 25 years) then you no
longer have an industry-based economy. With the loss of industry we
have been reverting to a service-based economy. Now the -service- jobs
are being outsourced as well. So what's the next rung down on the
ladder, Dave?

Intellectual property, information, management, and entertainment
content providers.


Salvage -- a nation with an economy that's based on
scrounging through our garbage piles for resale to, ironically, the
now industrialized nations that only a few decades ago were called
'third-world countries'. And that change is already happening. The US
is literally exporting it's garbage to foreign countries to be
recycled into the raw materials for -their- industries.

Frank, there are no shortage of demand for doctors, lawyers,
plumbers, carpenters, auto repair technicians, shippers, consumer
goods, and yes, even bartenders.


Gee, I seem to recall saying -something- about how we have turned into
a service-based economy.....hmmm, now where did I say that....?

And you also said that those services were being outsourced. The
examples that I provided are not likely to be outsourced as they
depend on the point of service.


But you think I should go back to school. I don't know why since I
earned a 3.9 in both Micro- and Macro-Economics.

Hold that thought, and remember it for later.


Speaking of policy, when do you suppose Bush is going to make good on
his promise to unite the parties and do away with partisan politics?

I suppose it has a lot to do with the democrats opposing anything that
a republican does. It's a two way street. The democrats are obligated
to be uniters as well. But like you can lead a horse to water but not
make him drink, we can sit politicians into a room, but we can't make
them cooperate. They have to do that on their own. And with nutcases
like Howard Dean trashing republicans in public speeches, it's doing
nothing more than driving a wedge into the crack.


So it's the Democrats fault that Bush can't overcome partisan
politics? ROTFLMMFAO!!!!!

It certainly is to a large degree. Listen to the things that Howard
Dean is spewing as of late. He is the embodiment for the typical
liberal wing of the democratic party and their viewpoint as to anyone
who does not share their ideological vision.

The media is full of terse, shrill, and just plain adolescent level
rhetoric from the democratic side of the aisle. It's one thing to
disagree with someone ideologically. But to impugn someone's character
with the venom and vitriol that leading democrats have used in the
last 5 years is counterproductive and contemptible. They don't want to
compromise. They want it their way, and their way only. Consequently,
they can't understand why the majority of Americans have become
disillusioned with them as a party.


You don't get it, Dave -- Bush claimed he would overcome partisan
politics but blames the Democrats because he can't.

To quote an analogy from Star Trek: "He's the president, not a miracle
worker".


That's like a car
mechanic saying that he can fix an engine, but then complains that he
can't fix it because it's broke.

No, more like he can't fix it because the parts that are broken are
out of stock and the manufacturer is on strike.


What an idiot! (And BTW, that was an
analogy, not a metaphor.)

I'll be sure to pass that on to Twisty, since he's the one who has a
problem differentiating.

One fact is that too much free international trade hurts the domestic
economy. Another fact is that the US isn't subject to the laws of the
WTO or NAFTA.

True. But are you willing to bet on our survival in the global market
against the combined interests of the rest of the industrialized
world?


Where, in any of my ramblings, did I ever suggest that the US should
economically isolate itself from the rest of the planet? I didn't. You
have to strike a balance between international and domestic economics,
which right now is horribly unbalanced. One strong indicator that
would show if things are improving would be a reduction (or complete
neutralization) of the trade deficit. But that isn't happening -- on
the contrary, the trade deficit just keeps getting bigger. That's bad
economics, Dave.

Well sure, we can't compete with the cheap labor of 3rd world
countries. But rather than go completely out of business, American
corporations now outsource manufacturing. But the profits that these
companies make still come back to the U.S. in one form or another.


We can pull out just like Bush pulled out of the Kyoto
accord. And another fact is that if the US pulls out of the WTO or
NAFTA then there will -still- be international trade for the simple
reason that the US has money and foreign companies want it.

Are you so sure about that?


Yep.

I'm not. You far overestimate the U.S. importance in the world.


What do we make that they can't? (and
cheaper).


Not 'cheaper', Dave -- just economically competitive.

No, THEY make it cheaper. We can't compete with them based on overhead
alone.


And what happens when we can no longer import oil? Are you
willing to drag this country down to the brink of economic depression
in order to restart it as it was 50 years ago?


Say what? 50 years ago the US was at the height of an economic boom.

That's what I meant. You can't turn the clock back 50 years to a point
where we were at the top of the game, because the other players have
done their homework.


And yet
-another- fact is that you have an extremely limited understanding of
economics.

No, I see the global picture. You're still living with a 1950's view
of the world and the dynamics of the global marketplace.


Money is money, people are people, and economics has been a functional
part of civilization for as long as there have been both people and
money. If you think that you have any better view on economics than
what has been learned in the past few thousand years then by all means
run for president.

It's not that simple. Money is money, but there's no allegiance to
American money. If, like you alleged before, China becomes a major
player and their population is allowed to become viable consumers,
they far eclipse the U.S. as a consumer market. My company already
does business with China, and we've already sold them a large amount
of product, and it's only a small pimple on the total population
there.


And once again you missed the point: If I was being hired by the
public then I might care if people know I have a better education than
'the other guy'. But I'm not running for office. The only person that
has any need or desire to know my credentials is any prospective
employer that would already have my resume.


Fourth, many academic institutions have reputations (not 'pedigrees')
that speak to the benefit of the graduate. A graduate from Cal-Tech
has a much better chance at getting hired than someone who passed a
correspondence course advertised in a magazine.

Yes, and another case of perception. Someone from Harvard, or MIT,
would be assumed to have been better educated than someone from a
state college. Even though this perception does not address how the
individual did at those respective schools. Some could call this
"perception prejudice"......


You're a kick, Dave -- you just shot down your own argument!!!

Not at all. I never denied that perception exists in certain areas.
My argument is that the perception that you got a better education
than someone who only had 2 years is not readily apparent, and
therefore there is no expectation of such, until YOU bring it up.


So what's the name of that tech school you claim to have attended,
Dave?

N.O.Y.F. Business University.


Why not just admit the fact that you never attended -any- tech school
or college?

That would be a lie.


You're about the same age as me, but you still haven't
learned that honesty is more credible than self-aggrandizing lies?

I'm not being dishonest. The fact that you THINK so, is only
speculation on your part.

That's why I have credibility and you don't

If you say so. There is little other evidence, except for your newly
found friend Twisty, who would vouch for that. I wouldn't exactly call
that a ringing endorsement.


-- I freely admit that I
graduated from a state university and not Cal-Tech; that I work as a
bartender and no longer as an EE at a radio station (and even that I
was unemployed for a while); that I don't make gobs of money or have
more time on my hands than someone who claims to have a family and a
high-paying job. I even admit that I'm fat (although I'm now down to
225, which is a significant improvement from last year -- mowing lawns
not only helps with the bills but also with the health!).

Yet you, Dave the Braggart, whose name and address are public
information that's readily accessible on the internet, can't even
admit where you went to tech school. Ok, Dave, whatever you say.

My name and address are public by virtue of my ham call. I didn't
voluntarily offer it.

Braggart? Now that's a hoot Frank. You call ME a braggart, when I
reveal very little at all of my personal life. You, on the other hand,
are quick to remind people of how you got a 3.9 in economics, the many
times you've told us where you went to school, how you "taught" logic
courses, absorbed a college level course in psychology from simply
helping a "friend", shadowed Olllie North in the military, and other
examples that have escaped me at the moment. It's very obvious that
you place a great deal of intrinsic value on your schooling, no doubt
a reflection of the difficulty you went through to get where you did.
But it's not the be all and end all Frank. A degree is only the key to
the door. They're a dime a dozen around here. It's what you do
afterward that really counts. So what are you using your degree for
today Frank?

So if anyone's bragging here Frank, it's you!

You make a big deal about credentials, as some sort of trump card (my
degree can beat up your degree). They are meaningless here.
Ideological debates transcend rote schooling, and go beyond what can
be taught in a classroom.

I haven't been in a classroom in over 20 years. I've forgotten much of
what I learned there that doesn't apply to my current area of work,
and the subjects that interest me on a personal level. Much of the
current technology that I work on today, wasn't even around back then.
What I know now I know from the ability to do the research myself.
Your degree is obsolete Frank, unless you continually refine and
augment it. But you're pouring drinks.


The contracts are both long-term and binding on Iraq, regardless of
what name they call the company or who runs it. You are clearly out of
the loop on this issue, Dave.

And I suppose you have access to those actual contracts, and not just
the hearsay opinion of some New York Times (or similar) reporter?


Or maybe the Wall Street Journal? But I suppose you think that's just
another branch of the left-wing radically liberal news media, huh?

I don't know. Try posting it, and I'll get back to you.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj