On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:59:32 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

I think you need to go back to school. You don't quite have a complete
grasp of global economics and the dynamics of the free market and the
effects of competition on the selling price. Demand causes the price
to rise. Competition causes the price to fall.
********

Demand and shortages influence pricing.

Dumping will cause prices to fall. Companies with deep pockets can
afford to dump product on the market for very low profit margins to
either gain market share or drive competition from the market. Thus in
hopes that they can recover profits in the near future with higher
prices and the resulting higher profit margins.

All too often in global economics discussions is that in the
manufacturering of consumer products one forgets that the consumer is
a fad conscience buyer. Getting to market to late or to early too many
times and you are staring bankruptcy head on. Life cycles of many fad
products may be as little as six months. Often it is two yrs. Even at
this rate so much has to be rolled into R&D to pump out the next
generation of products. R&D is paid for by profits. That is why deep
pocket corporations that can affors low profit margins and still fund
R&D will ultimately drive smaller less affluent companies out of some
of the consumer market.

THe saving grace to competiton is when a product is so low a run rate
that large companies find it not worth their time to get into such a
market. A free market society does not insure smooth steady even
prices. Instead it better marries high production companies with high
running products and low running products with companies that
specialize in small production. 30,000 units per year would be
considered in most circles small production. 5,000 units per yr would
be almost a cottage industry. Large mass production would be in the 1
million per yr run rates and higher.

Also remember this to stay in a market it is necessary that profit be
at least what one could get in a passbook savings account for the
value of all capital assets of the company. IF a company had 1 billion
in assets and a passbook savings account is 2%, then the company
making a product would need to make 20 million or it is better to sell
the assets and go find something else to do.

james

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:59:32 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

If you are trying to say that we can't really control inflation as
well as some might like to believe, then I agree with you.
****

The best we can do is to stay ahead of it.


james

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:29:11 GMT, james wrote
in :

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:26:18 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

Greenspan chopped the prime rate after Bush's tax "rebates" because
the expected revenue wasn't coming back -- instead of spending that
money people were paying down their credit cards. So the Fed dropped
the prime rate to encourage people to borrow and spend -more- money.
IOW, the Fed was bailing out the economy after Bush ****ed it up.
++++++++++++++

Actually the Federal Reserve chopped the Federal Funds Rate during
2000 to 2003 period. This in turned caused banks to lower the prime
rate.


The "prime rate" is set by Greenspan, not the banks -- it is the rate
at which the Fed loans money -to- the banks. Greenspan started cutting
the prime rate back in 1998 because the financial crises of Asia and
Russia threatened to destabilize the global economy. Ironically, it
was mostly because of those cuts that our trade with China turned from
a 300 billion dollar surplus into a 250 billion dollar deficit in just
a few years.


The process of controlling the Fed Rates is to pump in or take out
liquidity in the markets. Lower rates in a recession to stave off
defaltion. Raise rates when teh economy starts to heat up to controll
inflation. The Federal Reserve was very scared in 2000 that the US
would follow Japan. The consumer stimulation in the economy was
purposely done so that Deflation and Fed Rates would not fall below
1%. During Japan's deepest deflation period of 1997 to 2000 their
Central Bank rated never got abor 0.5%. The lower rate was as low
0.01%. The Japan Central Bank at times was literally giveing money
away and few one were taking then up on their offer.

One can debate the merits of teh Fed's move on money policy over the
past five yrs. In doing so you must consider which of the two evils in
worse? Between two and three yrs of deflation or four to five yrs of
stagnation? The Fed took the road of Stagnation considering the
wholesale lack of control on the part of Government to curtail
spending. Funny how the Republicans always criticized the Democrats on
their spending habits! I thought Republicans were supposed to fiscal
responsible? They spend money just as fast if not faster than
democrats.


No doubt.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:34:04 GMT, james wrote
in :

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:59:32 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Tariffs have nothing to do with inflation directly. But it can
stimulate it by initiating price increases.
******

Tariffs if used on short term basis will have small effects on
inflation. When used as a part of long term policy and become over
bearing then they can become a direct cause and effect to inflation.
Producers can absorb costs spikes that are one time occuring or short
term. If they remain long term then the producer must pass the cost of
tariffs on to the consumer in higher prices. Thus infaltion.


The price of foreign products goes up as a result of import tariffs,
which encourages increased domestic production and the creation of
more jobs. The higher prices are therefore offset by the resulting
stimulation of the domestic economy. The important thing to note here
is that import tariffs don't stimulate the economy if they are used
for just one or two products -- it needs to be a comprehensive package
that includes across-the-board import tariffs on finished products,
export restrictions on raw materials, tax incentives/penaties against
US coroporations that operate mostly inside/outside the border, etc.

The problem with such a package would be that certain treaties and
trade agreements would need to be repealed. But since most of those
agreements were made at the prompting of politicians that were later
hired by foreign corps (or US shell corps) that directly benefited
from those agreements, dropping those trade agreements shouldn't be a
problem after a little public education campaign.


But hey, it's never going to happen so I'll just go replace a few
hoses in the truck and be quiet.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 13:01:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


The "prime rate" is set by Greenspan, not the banks -- it is the rate
at which the Fed loans money -to- the banks. Greenspan started cutting
the prime rate back in 1998 because the financial crises of Asia and
Russia threatened to destabilize the global economy. Ironically, it
was mostly because of those cuts that our trade with China turned from
a 300 billion dollar surplus into a 250 billion dollar deficit in just
a few years.
****
Greenspan is the chairman of the Federal Reserve System and also
serves as head of the FOMC. Grenspan himself does not change the
Federal Funds Rate, but instead it is a vote of the FOMC, Federal Open
Market Committe. The Federal Funds Rate may also be known as the
Discount Rate. The Discount Rate or Federal Funds Rate has three
categories. This is on money that the Federal Reserve System lends to
member depository banks depending on their dredit worthyness. The best
or primary discount rate is an overnight interest rate given to the
best banks. The Seconbdary credit is for a longer period, up to 30
days, given to banks with less than exemplary credit ratings. The
Secondary Credit rate is also higher. Then there is the sessonal rate
which is above the secondary credit rate and below the Prime Rate.

The Prime Rate is the interest rate charged by banks for short-term
loans to their most creditworthy customers whose credit standing is so
high that little risk to the lender is involved.

From that the rest of the interest rates are set.


Yes you are correct that the Fed Funds Rates were cut 50 basis points
in 1998. Again it was with pressure from the Asian and Russian
markets. You also failed to mention that in 1999 and in 2000 the FOMC
raised Funds Rates 50 and 75 basis points respectively. I doubt that
these had much affect on the trade deficit. Instead I would more
attribute them to the fact that major high tech corporations and
automotive corporations were pumping well in excess of 100 billion
dollars in capital investments into China from 1998 to 2003. Add to
that the falling dollar with respect to the Euro and the Cinese Yuan
is pegged to our dollar has not helped the US trade deficit with
China.

Sorry I cannot accept the FOMC rate reductions in 2001 to 2003 as a
reason for the increase in the trade deficit.

james

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 01:04:08 GMT, james wrote
in :

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 13:01:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


The "prime rate" is set by Greenspan, not the banks -- it is the rate
at which the Fed loans money -to- the banks. Greenspan started cutting
the prime rate back in 1998 because the financial crises of Asia and
Russia threatened to destabilize the global economy. Ironically, it
was mostly because of those cuts that our trade with China turned from
a 300 billion dollar surplus into a 250 billion dollar deficit in just
a few years.
****
Greenspan is the chairman of the Federal Reserve System and also
serves as head of the FOMC. Grenspan himself does not change the
Federal Funds Rate, but instead it is a vote of the FOMC, Federal Open
Market Committe.


A vote based on the recommendation of the Chairman. And I might be
mistaken about this, but I don't recall the Fed ever voting against
any of Greenspan's recommendations.


The Federal Funds Rate may also be known as the
Discount Rate. The Discount Rate or Federal Funds Rate has three
categories. This is on money that the Federal Reserve System lends to
member depository banks depending on their dredit worthyness. The best
or primary discount rate is an overnight interest rate given to the
best banks. The Seconbdary credit is for a longer period, up to 30
days, given to banks with less than exemplary credit ratings. The
Secondary Credit rate is also higher. Then there is the sessonal rate
which is above the secondary credit rate and below the Prime Rate.

The Prime Rate is the interest rate charged by banks for short-term
loans to their most creditworthy customers whose credit standing is so
high that little risk to the lender is involved.

From that the rest of the interest rates are set.


I learned it a little different. I'll check my book-learnin' and get
back to you on this.


Yes you are correct that the Fed Funds Rates were cut 50 basis points
in 1998. Again it was with pressure from the Asian and Russian
markets. You also failed to mention that in 1999 and in 2000 the FOMC
raised Funds Rates 50 and 75 basis points respectively. I doubt that
these had much affect on the trade deficit.


That's why I didn't bother mentioning them. I also didn't bother
mentioning Greenspan's appointment and quick action after the crash of
1987 (during Reagan's term, just to refresh Dave's memory).


Instead I would more
attribute them to the fact that major high tech corporations and
automotive corporations were pumping well in excess of 100 billion
dollars in capital investments into China from 1998 to 2003. Add to
that the falling dollar with respect to the Euro and the Cinese Yuan
is pegged to our dollar has not helped the US trade deficit with
China.

Sorry I cannot accept the FOMC rate reductions in 2001 to 2003 as a
reason for the increase in the trade deficit.


Because too much of the money that's being borrowed at the lower rates
is being funneled out of the country as foreign investment capital,
which explains why it's having almost no effect at stimulating the
economy -- it's not ending up in the hands of American consumers as
was expected. This also explains why the rate has been held so low for
such an unprecedented length of time. But the Fed doesn't establish
foreign policy, and they can't hold the interest rates down forever.
Something has to break pretty soon. Kinda like the hoses in my truck
if I hadn't replaced them today.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:56:54 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

Because too much of the money that's being borrowed at the lower rates
is being funneled out of the country as foreign investment capital,
which explains why it's having almost no effect at stimulating the
economy -- it's not ending up in the hands of American consumers as
was expected. This also explains why the rate has been held so low for
such an unprecedented length of time. But the Fed doesn't establish
foreign policy, and they can't hold the interest rates down forever.
Something has to break pretty soon. Kinda like the hoses in my truck
if I hadn't replaced them today.
*******

And not to mention that the FMOC has rasied rates eight times in their
last eight meetings. I guess inflation is not heating up?

No, the trade deficit with China is due to China pegging their
currency to ours. This sets a fixed currency exchange rate that has
existed now for about ten yrs. China can pump goods into the US and
not loose value in currency exchange. The US consumer has borrowed
totheir friggin eyeballs and about 60% of their spending has gone into
buying Chinese goods simply because they are affordable and now have
relatively decent quality.

Yes the borrowing has gone to China in the flow of currency for goods.
You ought to look at some data on the US economy lately and not dwell
on what happened 6 yrs ago. Look at trends of government spending,
consumer debt, employment numbers.

james

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:18:59 GMT, james wrote
in :

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:56:54 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

Because too much of the money that's being borrowed at the lower rates
is being funneled out of the country as foreign investment capital,
which explains why it's having almost no effect at stimulating the
economy -- it's not ending up in the hands of American consumers as
was expected. This also explains why the rate has been held so low for
such an unprecedented length of time. But the Fed doesn't establish
foreign policy, and they can't hold the interest rates down forever.
Something has to break pretty soon. Kinda like the hoses in my truck
if I hadn't replaced them today.
*******

And not to mention that the FMOC has rasied rates eight times in their
last eight meetings. I guess inflation is not heating up?


The few recent and paltry increases hardly compare to the impact
caused from the length of time it has been held extraordinarily low.
And since the economy is being manipulated by the Fed, there isn't
much point in speculating whether inflation is bad or good since the
results won't follow their natural economic course -- the end result
is that it's good for the banks of the Fed.


No, the trade deficit with China is due to China pegging their
currency to ours. This sets a fixed currency exchange rate that has
existed now for about ten yrs.


I've never heard that. Got a link?


China can pump goods into the US and
not loose value in currency exchange. The US consumer has borrowed
totheir friggin eyeballs and about 60% of their spending has gone into
buying Chinese goods simply because they are affordable and now have
relatively decent quality.


The US consumer doesn't borrow money at the prime interest rate.


Yes the borrowing has gone to China in the flow of currency for goods.


But consumers spend money that is borrowed from consumer lenders at
consumer interest rates. If any of that money came from the Fed it did
so indirectly.


You ought to look at some data on the US economy lately and not dwell
on what happened 6 yrs ago. Look at trends of government spending,
consumer debt, employment numbers.


I look at a lot of numbers, including the ones you mentioned. But
while many of those numbers look good on the bottom line, they are
terribly misleading (as I'm sure you are already aware).

For example, Bush claimed to have created a total of 9 million new
jobs at the end of 2004. Now a person is employed (according to the
executive administration) if he/she works no less than one hour a
month. IOW, those 9 million new jobs could be the economic equivalent
of only a million or so full-time jobs. And that doesn't account for
the wages earned at these jobs, many (or perhaps most) of which are at
or near minimum wage. Nor does it account for lost pensions, wage and
benefit cutbacks, people that were forced into lower-paying jobs, or a
host of other employment statistics that don't show up in Bush's count
of 9 million new jobs. So the -real- issue is -not- how many new jobs
have been created, but what the effect has been on the GNP per capita,
and the effect hasn't been positive. Bush may have created 9 million
new jobs but the average household income -DROPPED- by 9%. In my book
that's called a 'loss', especially when prices have actually increased
in the same time period. But then you have to look at how inflation is
calculated, which is another horribly misleading statistic.....






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 10 Jun 2005 21:24:36 GMT, Steveo wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:14:24 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
I've heard the same thing echoed from many

hams. I've known hams who have religiously

made the trek to Dayton every year, and now

talk of this being their "last year". I guess it's a

shell of its former self. Talk like this is certainly
not making me want to experience it again any
time soon.

Dave

"Sandbagger"


The writing is on the wall. Shelby hammiefest in NC gasped its last
breath, also.

I was sad when the CB Coffee Breaks (or Jamborees) pretty much died.

Same here, we used to have a yuck it up ball at those, back in the day.

That's one of my most fold memories of the 70's CB boom. Some of the
"breaks" were pretty large and a ton of fun. The best one in my area
was held at a small local amusement park, which was great for us
teenaged kids at the time.

There were always vendors hawking their latest equipment and
accessories. Then there were those guys selling amps out of their
trunks ;-)...

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

Dave Hall wrote:
On 10 Jun 2005 21:24:36 GMT, Steveo wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:14:24 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
I've heard the same thing echoed from many

hams. I've known hams who have religiously

made the trek to Dayton every year, and now

talk of this being their "last year". I guess it's a

shell of its former self. Talk like this is certainly
not making me want to experience it again any
time soon.

Dave

"Sandbagger"


The writing is on the wall. Shelby hammiefest in NC gasped its last
breath, also.

I was sad when the CB Coffee Breaks (or Jamborees) pretty much died.

Same here, we used to have a yuck it up ball at those, back in the day.

That's one of my most fold memories of the 70's CB boom. Some of the
"breaks" were pretty large and a ton of fun. The best one in my area
was held at a small local amusement park, which was great for us
teenaged kids at the time.

There were always vendors hawking their latest equipment and
accessories. Then there were those guys selling amps out of their
trunks ;-)...

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

They had a big one monthly at the local ponderosa steak house near
here..same deal with the bootleg trunk sales. There was always the rumor
that 'Charlie' was in town too. g