|
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:55:57 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: That is the crux of the matter, we need to control our politicians (public servants) they control the military for us--the force would have to be directed the the servants who are going about with their own plans--just enough to convince them it is more beneficial for them to follow the peoples... we did this with a king of england and his powers once... I would suppose it could be done again... if that need ever arises... Be careful what you advocate. It would lead to no less than a civil war. Dave "Sandbagger" |
At this point, I doubt "civil war" would define it correctly...
More like us against all the laotians, vietnamese, philippinos, mexicans, indians, pakis, middle eastereners, etc, etc, etc which our public servants have given citizenship so we can support their medical, schools and use of our public facilities... Warmest regards, John "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:55:57 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: That is the crux of the matter, we need to control our politicians (public servants) they control the military for us--the force would have to be directed the the servants who are going about with their own plans--just enough to convince them it is more beneficial for them to follow the peoples... we did this with a king of england and his powers once... I would suppose it could be done again... if that need ever arises... Be careful what you advocate. It would lead to no less than a civil war. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:45:57 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:55:57 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: That is the crux of the matter, we need to control our politicians (public servants) they control the military for us--the force would have to be directed the the servants who are going about with their own plans--just enough to convince them it is more beneficial for them to follow the peoples... we did this with a king of england and his powers once... I would suppose it could be done again... if that need ever arises... Be careful what you advocate. It would lead to no less than a civil war. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ Which is practically an American birthright, as defined by the entire concept of the right to assemble State Militias. Such militias were designed by definition, as a necessary means to overthrow the US government should that government ever become corrupt. You are correct. That's what the 2nd amendment is all about. But tell me, in practical terms, how does a "militia" stand up against the organized might of the U.S. military? Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:35:51 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: (Most of your usual babble snipped) I never made any such claim. * *You claimed listening to underaged girls on cordless phones speaking of sex was "juicy". An adjective used to describe the nature of the conversation. It reflects in no way how I personally reacted to it. Once again you read more meanings in words than are actually conveyed. You were not a minor when you spoke of such acts being "juicy". No, but I was no more than about 22. The age difference between a 22 year old and an 18 year old is not even worth talking about. In fact, my wife is 3 years younger than me. So what of it? Now, the moral -majority- of people would find it disgustingly perverted that a man of your age 22? finds sex talk of minors "juicy". Again, the word describes the tone of the conversations. At no time did I claim that it "got me off" or affected me in any other way other than psychological curiosity. Anything other than what I have just said, is purely your imagination running amuck. Your words and actions speak loud and clear to the world, David, as only you have this incredible belief only you can see yourself as you really are and that you are misunderstood to the point that you need reiterate and explain yourself to each and every person you disagree. If someone is a thick and with the incredible comprehensively challenged as you are, I guess I do have to explain everything in simple basic terms. Otherwise you garner meanings that do not exist and assume something that was not expressly conveyed. You plead and plead that everyone misunderstands you David, I have never claimed that "everyone misunderstands me" as I have given many people good advice from Radio, to practical matters. YOU are the only one who does not understand me, and the reason for that is in you inability to comprehend simple sentences. I also listened to people making drug deals. But that doesn't make me a druggie. * It also doesn't disqualify your remarks just a few short years ago calling sex talk between minor girls "juicy". In this example, you not only had to be made aware that intentional eavesdropping of private conversations is illegal It was not illegal at the time I was engaged in listening. It was. This is another area concernig the law of which you are extremely ignorant. There was NO law preventing interception of cordless phones in the 1980's. None, nada, zilch. Prove me wrong if you can. And I'll laugh at your attempts. Any scanner user could do it. No David,,the last time this was brought up, you tried and failed with this excuse. When it was illustrated what a pervert you are, you come back with the defense that the incident occurred years and years ago, when you were a younger man. It appears you can remember vividly the details of such an incident that many years ago, but can not recal a simple Phelps antenna when inquired of a comment you made a few year's previous alluding to such. Nevertheless, back when you were that young, the scanners were not digital, but crystals, and contrary to your claim "any scanner user could do it", that simply was not the case back then. In fact, cordless phones came on the market in 1980 and were ALL 27 MHZ phones, a specific crystal that did NOT come imbedded in "any scanner". All of this coupled together with your oft-invoked "statistical probablility" factor, makes you to be one big freegin' liar! LMAO! Your lack of age and experience is glaringly apparent in this statement. First off, the first programmable scanners came out in the late 70's. Look into the Bearcat 101, the SBE Optiscan, the Regency "Whamo 10" and the Tenelec. My Bearcat 210xl was purchased in 1980 or 81, and you can clearly see it in the pictures of my station in 1985 and 1990 as shown on my website. Secondly cordless phones were not on 27 MHz (What idiot would put cordless phones on the already crowded CB band?). The 1st generation cordless phone was on 49 Mhz for the handset and 1.7 Mhz for the base unit. The second generation phones were 49 Mhz and 46 MHz. Later models dropped down as low as 44 Mhz. Then the 900 MHz phones came out sometime in the 90's. If the FCC or the phone lobby doesn't want people listening in, they need to block out those frequencies or scramble the transmissions. Then the same logic can be applied to use of the freeband. How? It was always a crime to eavesdrop on one's private telephone conversation using electronic equipment, David. It violates federal wiretap law, but your position of "thinking like a criminal" (your words) is interesting. Wire tapping did not apply to radio devices at that time. That was the glaring loophole in the wiretap law. There could be no reasonable expectation of privacy when you run unencrypted analog FM signals over a band that is generally easy to receive by "common" radio receivers (Such as a scanner). Again, prove me wrong if you can (But I won't hold my breath). I am more than willing to post the links to the ECPA, showing the date that it became .effective and what it covers. Try reading what applied to your situation, not what you think gave you permission to violate the law. The ECPA is what specifically addresses wireless phone devices. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. If you are going to break the law, you should at least be educated about the law you break and penalties you face. Remember that each time you run your unlicensed transmitter on the freeband..... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
Dave Hall wrote:
YOU are the only one who does not understand me, and the reason for that is in you inability to comprehend simple sentences. Oh come now Dave, you have me scratching my head from time to time, as I'm sure I do to you as well. I usually ignore this thread, but I scanned over it this time and had some time to reply. I think I can understand sentences ok so far. |
mopathetic the wrist flipper said:
"Oh come now Dave" AKC replies... Why? You wanna watch him do it? |
ahhh, don't look so they can see you, but take a look--I think it is
already corrupt... frown Warmest regards, John "I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message ... From: (Dave Hall) On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:55:57 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: That is the crux of the matter, we need to control our politicians (public servants) they control the military for us--the force would have to be directed the the servants who are going about with their own plans--just enough to convince them it is more beneficial for them to follow the peoples... we did this with a king of england and his powers once... I would suppose it could be done again... if that need ever arises... Be careful what you advocate. It would lead to no less than a civil war. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ Which is practically an American birthright, as defined by the entire concept of the right to assemble State Militias. Such militias were designed by definition, as a necessary means to overthrow the US government should that government ever become corrupt. |
Dave:
Kinda like the "suicide bombers" in Iraq--only hopefully Americans are intelligent to get away without blowing themselves up--would be more effective if more than one bomb could be delivered before your death--hypothetically speaking of course... Warmest regards, John "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:45:57 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave Hall) On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:55:57 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: That is the crux of the matter, we need to control our politicians (public servants) they control the military for us--the force would have to be directed the the servants who are going about with their own plans--just enough to convince them it is more beneficial for them to follow the peoples... we did this with a king of england and his powers once... I would suppose it could be done again... if that need ever arises... Be careful what you advocate. It would lead to no less than a civil war. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ Which is practically an American birthright, as defined by the entire concept of the right to assemble State Militias. Such militias were designed by definition, as a necessary means to overthrow the US government should that government ever become corrupt. You are correct. That's what the 2nd amendment is all about. But tell me, in practical terms, how does a "militia" stand up against the organized might of the U.S. military? Dave "Sandbagger" |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:35:51 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: (Most of your usual babble snipped) Truth is always snipped, David, especially when your lies about cellular phones are brought to light with proof. I never made any such claim. =A0 =A0You claimed listening to underaged girls on cordless phones speaking of sex was "juicy". An adjective used to describe the nature of the conversation. Wrong,,,an adjective chosen by -you- to convey -your- interpretations of sex talk by minors. It reflects in no way how I personally reacted to it. No one claimed differently. in fact, you probably jacked off to it, but not one tried claiming how you reacted to it. You invoked how you felt about it. You found such talk "juicy". Once again you read more meanings in words than are actually conveyed. But of course, David. This is your pattern. This is the part where you redefine what you really meant with the term "juicy" when eavesdropping on minors talk about sex. You were not a minor when you spoke of such acts being "juicy". No, but I was no more than about 22. You lie. You made the post a few years ago and called the act "juicy". The age difference between a 22 year old and an 18 year old is not even worth talking about. That's right, except you called it "juicy" just a few short years ago. In fact, my wife is 3 years younger than me. And her middle name begins with T and she lived at 1819 Gravers Road in Plymouth Meeting, a (according to your definition) suburb of Norristown that appears when plugged into google maps,,remember,,,,,it was that thing you said you tried but it gave you "nada" results. So what of it? =A0Now, the moral -majority- of people would find it disgustingly perverted that a man of your age 22? You weren't 22 when you described the act you performed. You said it in your post only a few short years ago, and I quote, that their "talk of sex was "juicier" than Melrose Place", which came on in the nineties, when you were well into your thirties. Just for the record, you did not claim the act of eavesdropping on these minors was "juicy" when you did the act, you said it a few short years ago. Yet, you entertainingly think yourself as part of some imagined moral majority. Any majority of moral people would not describe the act of eavesdropping on minors speaking of sex as "juicy" at your age. Get over it, David. You're a perv and your problems are all over these pages. =A0=A0 Again, the word describes the tone of the conversations. Normal moral adults would disagree with you, David. Normal moral adults would not find such "tones" of minors as "juicy". And again, the term denotes -your- interpretation of sex talk by minors as such. At no time did I claim that it "got me off" or affected me in any other way other than psychological curiosity. Of course you did, you caled it "juicy". Please do not embarrass yourself again by misleading yourself that anyone at all would believe a young man of the age you speak would consider any psychological factor concerning such talk. Anything other than what I have just said, is purely your imagination running amuck. Your words and actions speak loud and clear to the world, David, as only you have this incredible belief only you can see yourself as you really are and that you are misunderstood to the point that you need reiterate and explain yourself to each and every person you disagree. If someone is a thick and with the incredible comprehensively challenged as you are, I guess I do have to explain everything in simple basic terms. Which you have demonstrated throughout your posting history with all you disagree, David. Your errant behavior began long before I came along and tweaked you with your own offensive acts. Otherwise you garner meanings that do not exist and assume something that was not expressly conveyed. You plead and plead that everyone misunderstands you David, I have never claimed that "everyone misunderstands me" Sure you have, David, You do it in the manner of attempting to explain away "just what you really meant" after manking a post using words you have no clue their definition. For countless examples of you not understanding the majority of people you disagree, one merely needs google "sandbagger" and the words "you mean". Cripes, there is enough reading for even the most remote layperson to get a handle on your communication deficits. as I have given many people good advice from Radio, to practical matters. Which does not excuse your deficit. YOU are the only one who does not understand me, You told Frank he couldn't understand your politics. You said Shark couldn't understand the laws in your state because he didn't live there ( a most ludicrous comment coming from the end we expect it most) after he produced proof that one can indeed et a speeding ticket in your state for going less than 5 MPH under the posted limit, despite your objections claiming otherwise. and the reason for that is in you inability to comprehend simple sentences. Actually David, and I'm not the only one who has pointed this out to you, it's because you misuse words of which you have no clue their definition. This is probably why there are so many posts with you not comprehending what others say to you. LOL..again try the google with your words "Do you mean" or "did you mean". The number of posts made by you seeking clarification to other's words are numerable, yet, your knee jerk reaction is to blame another. Do the search David, it's not the "other", it's you all throughout your posting history who can ot comprehend what others tell you. Despite your paranoia, it's not just me David, there are many many others in those returns which have you expressing difficulties. The ony common theme in ALL the posts, is you disagreed with each and every one of those of which you needed to seek clarification. This holds with your need for validation. I also listened to people making drug deals. But that doesn't make me a druggie. =A0 It also doesn't disqualify your remarks just a few short years ago calling sex talk between minor girls "juicy". =A0In this example, you not only had to be madeaware that intentional eavesdropping of private conversations is illegal It was not illegal at the time I was engaged in listening. It was. This is another area concernig the law of which you are extremely ignorant. There was NO law preventing interception of cordless phones in the 1980's. None, nada, zilch. Prove me wrong if you can. And I'll laugh at your attempts. You've been proved wrong, such as on the roger beep issue, and most -have- laughed at you, David. Any scanner user could do it. No David,,the last time this was brought up, you tried and failed with this excuse. When it was illustrated what a pervert you are, you come back with the defense that the incident occurred years and years ago, when you were a younger man. It appears you can remember vividly the details of such an incident that many years ago, but can not recal a simple Phelps antenna when inquired of a comment you made a few year's previous alluding to such. Nevertheless, back when you were that young, the scanners were not digital, but crystals, and contrary to your claim "any scanner user could do it", that simply was not the case back then. In fact, cordless phones came on the market in 1980 and were ALL 27 MHZ phones, a specific crystal that did NOT come imbedded in "any scanner". All of this coupled together with your oft-invoked "statistical probablility" factor, makes you to be one big freegin' liar! LMAO! Your lack of age and experience is glaringly apparent in this statement. First off, the first programmable scanners came out in the late 70's. Look into the Bearcat 101, the SBE Optiscan, the Regency "Whamo 10" and the Tenelec. My Bearcat 210xl was purchased in 1980 or 81, and you can clearly see it in the pictures of my station in 1985 and 1990 as shown on my website. Secondly cordless phones were not on 27 MHz (What idiot would put cordless phones on the already crowded CB band?). The same type idiot that comes out here pretending he knows all kinds of things about all kinds of things, but knows jack **** intimately. www.affordablephones.net/HistoryCordless.htm LMAO,,the feds did it, genius. They most certainly WERE on 27 in their beginning. The 1st 49 MHZ came about in or around 1986. Talk that smack, David. generation cordless phone was on 49 Mhz (Snip) As usual, your lack of knowledge of the subject was illustrated perfectly. Such lack of knowldge of the subject prevents you from discussing it further. If the FCC or the phone lobby doesn't want people listening in, they need to block out those frequencies or scramble the transmissions. Then the same logic can be applied to use of the freeband. =A0=A0How? The method was your idea. The fact that you once again speak before thinking is illustrated by no one better than yourself. _ It was always a crime to eavesdrop on one's private telephone conversation using electronic equipment, David. It violates federal wiretap law, but your position of "thinking like a criminal" (your words) is interesting. Wire tapping did not apply to radio devices at that time. It was still considered a telephone and as such was subject to the rules and regulations governing telpephones.. That was the glaring loophole in the wiretap law. No loophole at all, just another wrong claim from you. There could be no reasonable expectation of privacy when you run unencrypted analog FM signals over a band that is generally easy to receive by "common" radio receivers (Such as a scanner). One's expectations of privacy has nothing to do with the law, David. Again, prove me wrong if you can (But I won't hold my breath). I've proved you wrong so many times with radio law that it's downright dandy giving you the cord and watching you so eagerly jump to wrap it around your neck. You are so quick to jump these days that you rant on about things you have no clue. Please tell us more of what you do not know, David. You get real funny in these episodes of which you are made to perform and demand. I am more than willing to post the links to the ECPA, showing the date that it became .effective and what it covers. Try reading what applied to your situation, not what you think gave you permission to violate the law. .The ECPA is what specifically addresses wireless phone devices. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. If you are going to break the law, you should at least be educated about the law you break and penalties you face. Remember that each time you run your unlicensed transmitter on the freeband..... My Ten-Tec needs no license or acceptance. See, this is another example of your **** poor retainment skills, as you have been informed on repeated occasion that as an extra, you ought know such things, but then again you are the deviant exception to hammie ops, not the norm. David T. Hall Jr. "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On 06 Jun 2005 19:48:01 GMT, Steveo wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: YOU are the only one who does not understand me, and the reason for that is in you inability to comprehend simple sentences. Oh come now Dave, you have me scratching my head from time to time, as I'm sure I do to you as well. I usually ignore this thread, but I scanned over it this time and had some time to reply. I think I can understand sentences ok so far. Of course you can. There's nothing wrong with your ability to comprehend. You're not an idiot. Once in a while we sometimes have trouble putting our thoughts into comprehensible words. And sometimes others have trouble understanding what it is that we try to say. That's to be expected. But with some people it's more the rule than the exception...... BTW, how was Dayton? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
Dave Hall wrote:
BTW, how was Dayton? Nerd festival. :P |
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:55:58 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:35:51 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: (Most of your usual babble snipped) Truth is always snipped, David, especially when your lies about cellular phones are brought to light with proof. The only one who lies is you. Of course you can always use Bush's excuse and claim that you were "misinformed".... I never made any such claim. * *You claimed listening to underaged girls on cordless phones speaking of sex was "juicy". An adjective used to describe the nature of the conversation. Wrong,,,an adjective chosen by -you- to convey -your- interpretations of sex talk by minors. The adjective was used to describe the nature of the conversation. The age of the participants is irrelevant. Feel free to insert your own adjective if you wish. It reflects in no way how I personally reacted to it. No one claimed differently. in fact, you probably jacked off to it No, in your own dirty little immature mind, you might think that. But the "fact" is much different. Wasn't it Al Bundy who once said "Why go out for milk when you have a cow at home?" , but not one tried claiming how you reacted to it. You invoked how you felt about it. You found such talk "juicy". So would anyone else who happened to hear it, so what? Once again you read more meanings in words than are actually conveyed. But of course, David. This is your pattern. This is the part where you redefine what you really meant with the term "juicy" when eavesdropping on minors talk about sex. Trying to get you to comprehend is like teaching a pig to dance. A fruitless prospect. But it is fun watching you apply your demented mind to simple sentences. You were not a minor when you spoke of such acts being "juicy". No, but I was no more than about 22. You lie. You made the post a few years ago and called the act "juicy". A few years ago, I posted about something that I did when I was 22. I also post quite often about my experiences on CB back in the 70's. Does that mean that I did it at the exact time I posted it? In fact, my wife is 3 years younger than me. And her middle name begins with T and she lived at 1819 Gravers Road in Plymouth Meeting, a (according to your definition) suburb of Norristown that appears when plugged into google maps,,remember,,,,,it was that thing you said you tried but it gave you "nada" results. You said 1819 Gravers road in Norristown. There is NO Gravers road in Norristown. Plain and simple. It does not show up in either Mapquest or Google. Now had you been more accurate in your information, and given me Plymouth Meeting (Which has it's own post office and is a town in it's own right) then it might have worked. Don't blame me for YOUR error. My wife never lived there, nor does her middle name begin with "T". You are wrong yet again (A pattern for you). So what of it? *Now, the moral -majority- of people would find it disgustingly perverted that a man of your age 22? You weren't 22 when you described the act you performed. No, but I was when I actually partook in it. You said it in your post only a few short years ago, and I quote, that their "talk of sex was "juicier" than Melrose Place", which came on in the nineties, when you were well into your thirties. So you believe that a person cannot take two elements from different times and compare them at a later date? I can't talk about my 1967 Mustang in the same sentence as talking about my current rides? I can compare the state of CB radio today to what it was like 35 years ago? Are you THAT mentally impaired? Just for the record, you did not claim the act of eavesdropping on these minors was "juicy" when you did the act, you said it a few short years ago. Yet, you entertainingly think yourself as part of some imagined moral majority. Any majority of moral people would not describe the act of eavesdropping on minors speaking of sex as "juicy" at your age. Get over it, David. You're a perv and your problems are all over these pages. I'm not the one accusing other people of masturbation, of dressing in drag, or talking about abhorrent sex acts with other men. That would be reserved for you at various times and posts. So tell me again who the "perv" is? * Again, the word describes the tone of the conversations. Normal moral adults would disagree with you, David. Normal moral adults would not find such "tones" of minors as "juicy". And again, the term denotes -your- interpretation of sex talk by minors as such. Moral adults would not be operating unlicensed transmitters on unauthorized frequencies, and then incorrectly use the term "civil disobedience" in a vain attempt to ease what little conscience they might have. At no time did I claim that it "got me off" or affected me in any other way other than psychological curiosity. Of course you did, you caled it "juicy". Please do not embarrass yourself again by misleading yourself that anyone at all would believe a young man of the age you speak would consider any psychological factor concerning such talk. You don't know me very well (after all this time) do you? Why do you think I bother responding to you at all? Do you think I do it because I feel that you are a person of influence, or that the things you say have some intrinsic value? LMAO! If so, then you really are as narcissistic as I've thought. No, I do it for the psychological entertainment value that you provide. I love watching you bend even the most straightforward statements into convoluted fragments of the truth. I love watching you lie, and then back pedal to cover it up. I love driving you to dig up information about me, and end up getting much of it wrong, yet accuse ME of seeking information about you. This is greater entertainment than watching Homer Simpson say "Doh" for the hundred thousandth time. I've always enjoyed watching the human experience. Who needs scripted "reality" TV when the real world is your stage and regular people are here to perform, and all without scripts (But maybe with a little prodding). It also gives me insight into how people think and what things are important to them. Just like Dr. Jane Goodall studies primates in order to understand their social interaction, I do the same for humans. Informally, but it's fun watching people react predictably to programmed stimuli. On that note, you have never failed yet. Anything other than what I have just said, is purely your imagination running amuck. Your words and actions speak loud and clear to the world, David, as only you have this incredible belief only you can see yourself as you really are and that you are misunderstood to the point that you need reiterate and explain yourself to each and every person you disagree. If someone is a thick and with the incredible comprehensively challenged as you are, I guess I do have to explain everything in simple basic terms. Which you have demonstrated throughout your posting history with all you disagree, David. Your errant behavior began long before I came along and tweaked you with your own offensive acts. No, actually it hasn't. You are the only one who sees fit to mince words, twist meanings, obfuscate the truth, make disingenuous statements, and project your failings on to others. Nothing is more laughable (To the point of tears sometimes) than to hear you go off on other people and accuse them of having "communications deficits" when it is clear to anyone who's been here for more than a few weeks that it is YOU who can't seem to grasp the straight meaning. It's no wonder you fall for liberal propaganda. In your convoluted mind, their logic probably makes sense. Otherwise you garner meanings that do not exist and assume something that was not expressly conveyed. You plead and plead that everyone misunderstands you David, I have never claimed that "everyone misunderstands me" Sure you have, David, You do it in the manner of attempting to explain away "just what you really meant" after manking a post using words you have no clue their definition. I never use a word that I do not know the definition of. You have tried to make an issue of my vernacular, or grammatical usage, but in every case, I have provided the definitions of the words to support my usage. Your predictable response has always been to attack my source. Since I started using internet dictionaries, it becomes harder for you to claim that I am "lying" about it as it is easily verifiable by anyone who cares. For countless examples of you not understanding the majority of people you disagree, one merely needs google "sandbagger" and the words "you mean". Cripes, there is enough reading for even the most remote layperson to get a handle on your communication deficits. There you go again, projecting your own faults onto me. Google "Twistedhed" and "Lying" and see what you come up with. as I have given many people good advice from Radio, to practical matters. Which does not excuse your deficit. You mean YOUR deficit. YOU are the only one who does not understand me, You told Frank he couldn't understand your politics. People will argue politics until the cows come home. Both sides claim to have the "facts", while accusing the other side of "propagandizing". All I tried to do with Frank, is to show him that his political beliefs were based on no more credible information than mine were. Even after he hypocritically tried to discredit my sources as "propaganda" while offering up his own propaganda (Which he claimed to be "fact") as proof of such. All he had to do was say that he believes what he wants to believe, based on his own intrinsic core values. But instead he tried to walk the intellectual high road. But all I have to do is hold up a mirror to every claim he makes at me, and the same rules apply right back. You said Shark couldn't understand the laws in your state because he didn't live there Well yea, how can someone who doesn't live here have any experience with the process of the LEO's here? I admit quite readily that there are many laws in California that I am not familiar with. I have no reason to be. I don't live there. There are many similarities, but there are also differences. ( a most ludicrous comment coming from the end we expect it most) after he produced proof that one can indeed et a speeding ticket in your state for going less than 5 MPH under the posted limit, despite your objections claiming otherwise. What proof did he offer? He offered nothing but his own opinionated claim that "a cop can write a ticket for anything if he wants", which is a ridiculous statement to make. If the cop has any hope of having that ticket stand up in court (Which he would have to appear at), then it better be legitimate. All one would have to do is show up in court with a copy of statute 3368, and the ticket goes away in most cases. I posted the statutes that clearly define the speed tolerances that are in effect in the Commonwealth of Pa. They clearly supported my claims in the vast majority of cases, stopwatches and tailgating notwithstanding. So who are you going to believe, the opinion of an out of state resident, professing a gut feeling, or the actual laws printed in black and white? You (and he) lost that one big time. Why you continue to bring it up only shows the depths of your psychological problems. and the reason for that is in you inability to comprehend simple sentences. Actually David, and I'm not the only one who has pointed this out to you, it's because you misuse words of which you have no clue their definition. Name them. And in the proper context in which I used them. This is probably why there are so many posts with you not comprehending what others say to you. LOL..again try the google with your words "Do you mean" or "did you mean". The number of posts made by you seeking clarification to other's words are numerable, yet, your knee jerk reaction is to blame another. Do the search David, it's not the "other", it's you all throughout your posting history who can ot comprehend what others tell you. Despite your paranoia, it's not just me David, there are many many others in those returns which have you expressing difficulties. The ony common theme in ALL the posts, is you disagreed with each and every one of those of which you needed to seek clarification. This holds with your need for validation. Your lying again. I have no trouble communicating with anyone. Anyone, that is, who has normal mental faculties. But during the course of communication, especially on technical issues, one often finds the need for some additional information, or clarification. It is far better, and much more polite, to ask for clarification than to assume a meaning when it is not clear or forthcoming. But that's been one of your primary problems, you jump to conclusions, often the wrong ones, rather than getting that clarification. Don't worry, we won't (can't) think any less of you if you can't understand what someone is trying to say. We'll try to speak a little slower next time. It was not illegal at the time I was engaged in listening. It was. This is another area concernig the law of which you are extremely ignorant. There was NO law preventing interception of cordless phones in the 1980's. None, nada, zilch. Prove me wrong if you can. And I'll laugh at your attempts. You've been proved wrong, such as on the roger beep issue, and most -have- laughed at you, David. The roger beep issue does not equate to, or bear any relevance to the ECPA and cordless phone reception issue. Your attempt at deflection is duly noted. Any scanner user could do it. No David,,the last time this was brought up, you tried and failed with this excuse. When it was illustrated what a pervert you are, you come back with the defense that the incident occurred years and years ago, when you were a younger man. It appears you can remember vividly the details of such an incident that many years ago, but can not recal a simple Phelps antenna when inquired of a comment you made a few year's previous alluding to such. Nevertheless, back when you were that young, the scanners were not digital, but crystals, and contrary to your claim "any scanner user could do it", that simply was not the case back then. In fact, cordless phones came on the market in 1980 and were ALL 27 MHZ phones, a specific crystal that did NOT come imbedded in "any scanner". All of this coupled together with your oft-invoked "statistical probablility" factor, makes you to be one big freegin' liar! LMAO! Your lack of age and experience is glaringly apparent in this statement. First off, the first programmable scanners came out in the late 70's. Look into the Bearcat 101, the SBE Optiscan, the Regency "Whamo 10" and the Tenelec. My Bearcat 210xl was purchased in 1980 or 81, and you can clearly see it in the pictures of my station in 1985 and 1990 as shown on my website. Secondly cordless phones were not on 27 MHz (What idiot would put cordless phones on the already crowded CB band?). The same type idiot that comes out here pretending he knows all kinds of things about all kinds of things, but knows jack **** intimately. www.affordablephones.net/HistoryCordless.htm LMAO,,the feds did it, genius. They most certainly WERE on 27 in their beginning. The 1st 49 MHZ came about in or around 1986. Talk that smack, David. Wrong. The first 49 Mhz (with 1.7 Mhz return) was on the market earlier than 1986, because I was listening to them long before then. I bought my Yaesu FT-757 in 1984 (I still have the receipt), and I used it to catch the cordless phone base frequency, while the Bearcat scanner was tuned to the initial 10 (Later upped to 25) 49 Mhz frequencies. In fact, you've just given me the inspiration for another article for my website. I'll provide all the details there. It's a darn shame that the cordless phones came along when they did. They pretty much ruined the 49 Mhz band as an unlicensed hobby band. Prior to about 1982, there was a budding group of low power experimenters running 100 mW (And in some cases modified 6 meter ham gear) radios and trying to work DX there. When the phones and baby monitors arrived, that was the death knell for that band for hobbyists and experimenters. I still have my old Lafayette HA-240 on 49.860 Mhz. The 46/49 Mhz phones (49 Mhz handset, 46 Mhz base) started around 1986. While I won't deny that the very first phones might have actually been on 27 MHz, I was not into listening to them then (It would have been a lot easier to do. Any modified CB could have done it). I don't think those early phones sold all that well. I never saw or heard one in my area. As usual, your lack of knowledge of the subject was illustrated perfectly. Such lack of knowldge of the subject prevents you from discussing it further. My knowledge was from direct personal experience. I know you're too young to remember back that far, but the first truly legitimate cordless phones used 49 Mhz for the handset and 1.7 Mhz (Just above the AM broadcast band) for the base unit. Find an old timer and ask them if you don't believe me. If the FCC or the phone lobby doesn't want people listening in, they need to block out those frequencies or scramble the transmissions. Then the same logic can be applied to use of the freeband. **How? The method was your idea. The fact that you once again speak before thinking is illustrated by no one better than yourself. Which means what exactly? As usual, you are talking a bunch of circular nonsense. Someday, I hope to read a nice long E-mail from you outlining just how your postings were all deliberate attempts at psychological tweaking. I can far better respect you for being that, than a unconscious dyslexic thinker. My faith in humanity is greatly lowered knowing that such people exist and actually think they know something. It was always a crime to eavesdrop on one's private telephone conversation using electronic equipment, David. It violates federal wiretap law, but your position of "thinking like a criminal" (your words) is interesting. Wire tapping did not apply to radio devices at that time. It was still considered a telephone and as such was subject to the rules and regulations governing telpephones.. Nope. There was no provision in any wiretap law at that time that specifically addresses reception of cordless phones. So by using your logic, if it isn't specifically called out as illegal, assume that it is legal. That was the glaring loophole in the wiretap law. No loophole at all, just another wrong claim from you. Then I'm sure you will provide the exact verbiage to substantiate your claim? There could be no reasonable expectation of privacy when you run unencrypted analog FM signals over a band that is generally easy to receive by "common" radio receivers (Such as a scanner). One's expectations of privacy has nothing to do with the law, David. It has a great deal to do with it. Again, prove me wrong if you can (But I won't hold my breath). I've proved you wrong so many times with radio law that it's downright dandy giving you the cord and watching you so eagerly jump to wrap it around your neck. You are so quick to jump these days that you rant on about things you have no clue. The only thing I have been wrong on was the roger beep issue. And you didn't prove that. I had to get the info myself from the FCC. As for anything else, you're just blowing smoke. Now, I'll say this as directly and as succinctly as possible so that you will (hopefully) understand it. Please provide the exact verbiage in the federal wiretap law, as is was around 1984, that specifically addresses reception of cordless phones. I am more than willing to post the links to the ECPA, showing the date that it became effective and what it covers. Try reading what applied to your situation, not what you think gave you permission to violate the law. The ECPA is what specifically addresses wireless phone devices. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. If you are going to break the law, you should at least be educated about the law you break and penalties you face. Remember that each time you run your unlicensed transmitter on the freeband..... My Ten-Tec needs no license or acceptance. True, for the amateur bands where authority to operate is granted to a properly licensed amateur (Which BTW, are you one?), and type acceptance of radio gear is not required. However, the radio is not authorized to operate anywhere other than the amateur bands except by license or authorization (such as MARS or CAP). Certain other bands require type acceptance of radio gear. The land mobile service (which is what the freeband was once part of) does (As does the CB band). So your Ten Tec is not type accepted to operate on the land mobile band, and you are not licensed as an operator on that band. That's two strikes. See, this is another example of your **** poor retainment skills, as you have been informed on repeated occasion that as an extra, you ought know such things, but then again you are the deviant exception to hammie ops, not the norm. You are the one who doesn't understand radio law. No matter how many time you spew your convoluted understanding of the law, it will not make it right. You are not authorized to operate a transmitter on the freeband without a license. It is not a band authorized by rule, therefore the operator requires a station license. If you don't have one, you are not authorized to run there, Period. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:12:14 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Dave: Kinda like the "suicide bombers" in Iraq--only hopefully Americans are intelligent to get away without blowing themselves up--would be more effective if more than one bomb could be delivered before your death--hypothetically speaking of course... Warmest regards, John Then we would be no better morally, than the terrorists that we are seeking to fight in the middle east. Killing innocent lives through violence to front a cause seems to be counterproductive. It's hard to gather sympathy and support for your cause, when your "bombs" kill someone in another's family. That's why, I believe, we will ultimately win in Iraq. The Iraqi people are growing tired of the criminal element in their own society carrying out these acts of violence, and they will (and are) help us to eradicate them. Dave "Sandbagger" |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:55:58 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) =A0 =A0You claimed listening to underaged girls on cordless phones speaking of sex was "juicy". An adjective used to describe the nature of the conversation. Wrong,,,an adjective chosen by -you- to convey -your- interpretations of sex talk by minors. The adjective was used to describe the nature of the conversation. Only by perverts. The age of the participants is irrelevant. Only to perverts. The mere fact that you feel normal moral adults would find sex talk by minor underaged girls as "juicy" like you do, is way off base. Feel free to insert your own adjective if you wish. Perverted. =A0=A0It reflects in no way how I personally reacted to it. No one claimed differently. in fact, you probably jacked off to it No, in your own dirty little immature mind, LOL,,,you are the one finding sex talk by undeaged girls "juicy" David. The dirty litle immature mind is all yours. Stop projecting your deficiencies unto others. you might think that. But the "fact" is much different. Wasn't it Al Bundy who once said "Why go out for milk when you have a cow at home?" The "fact" is you found sex talk of minors "juicy" and normal moral adults do not agree with you. Normal moral adults find such behavior troubling and of deviant behavior.. Not one tried claiming how you reacted to it. You invoked how you felt about it. You found such talk "juicy". So would anyone else who happened to hear it, so what? You didn't "happen" upon it David, you went out of your way to obtain the conversation. And again, you're wrong. "Anyone else" would not describe sex talk between minor underaged children as "juicy". Only perverts like yourself. Once again you read more meanings in words than are actually conveyed. But of course, David. This is your pattern. This is the part where you redefine what you really meant with the term "juicy" when eavesdropping on minors talk about sex. Trying to get you to comprehend is like teaching a pig to dance. A fruitless prospect. But it is fun watching you apply your demented mind to simple sentences. Demented is a choice term to apply to an adult of your age who continues to refer to talk by children of sex as "juicy". Freak. You were not a minor when you spoke of such acts being "juicy". No, but I was no more than about 22. You lie. You made the post a few years ago and called the act "juicy". .A few years ago, I posted about something that I did when I was 22. And you called it "juicy" a few years ago, and here you are now defending the term you used and reiterating that you indeed found such talk as "juicy". You appear to need another vocabulary lesson. The manner in which you used the term can have only two meanings: 1) Appealing; satisfying or 2) Interesting or colorful especially when slightly scandalous. You're a freak who shouldn't be permitted around children unless other adults are present. I also post quite often about my experiences on CB back in the 70's. Does that mean that I did it at the exact time I posted it? That whine is getting redundant. In fact, my wife is 3 years younger than me. And her middle name begins with T and she lived at 1819 Gravers Road in Plymouth Meeting, a (according to your definition) suburb of Norristown that appears when plugged into google maps,,remember,,,,,it was that thing you said you tried but it gave you "nada" results. You said 1819 Gravers road in Norristown. I said to -enter- "1819 Gravers Road Norristown" into google, but then again, your deficit is in full gear right now, brought on by your self-created stress and gaffes. There is NO Gravers road in Norristown. Plain and simple. It does not show up in either Mapquest or Google. You are still having problems, David. I told you to enter the info into google, you said you did do that and that "nada" was returned. Now you are experiencing that great familiar pain that ails you when you fail with semantics. Now had you been more accurate in your information, and given me Plymouth Meeting (Which has it's own post office and is a town in it's own right) then it might have worked. Norristown has its own PO also, yet, you insisted it was a "suburb" of Philly. In fact, you have confused yourself twice in the past by giving contraindicated information concerning what you mistakenly feel constitutes a suburb. Sef-contradiction is a by=3Dproduct of your incompetence. Don't blame me for YOUR error. My wife never lived there, nor does her middle name begin with "T". You are wrong yet again (A pattern for you). So what of it? Now, the moral -majority- of people would find it disgustingly perverted that a man of your age 22? You weren't 22 when you described the act you performed. No, but I was when I actually partook in it. You said it in your post only a few short years ago, and I quote, that their "talk of sex was "juicier" than Melrose Place", which came on in the nineties, when you were well into your thirties. .So you believe that a person cannot take two elements from different times and compare them at a later date? Most people grow up and those who would find such behavior involving minors speaking of sex would not find the talk "juicy" when they were in their forties, but you not only defend your interpretation of this behavior, you continue to insist talk of sex by minors in "juicy" to you. You have problems, David. I can't talk about my 1967 Mustang in the same sentence as talking about my current rides? I can compare the state of CB radio today to what it was like 35 years ago? Are you THAT mentally impaired? Mentally impaired are those like yourself who find sex talk of minors "juicy". In fact, the majority of normal moral adults find your talk of such acts as quite disturbing. Just for the record, you did not claim the act of eavesdropping on these minors was "juicy" when you did the act, you said it a few short years ago. Yet, you entertainingly think yourself as part of some imagined moral majority. Any majority of moral people would not describe the act of eavesdropping on minors speaking of sex as "juicy" at your age. Get over it, David. You're a perv and your problems are all over these pages. I'm not the one accusing other people of masturbation, of dressing in drag, When one of your age comes out here and invokes unsolicited claims to the world that you find talk between minors talking of sex as "juicy", what others accuse you of is the least of your problems. or talking about abhorrent sex acts with other men. Ahhh,,,you and Dogie are the --only-- ones on this board who are preoccupied with queers and gays, as only you two consistently enter such into your conversations. That would be reserved for you at various times and posts. So tell me again who the "perv" is? =A0 Adults who find talk of sex by minors as "juicy". Again, the word describes the tone of the conversations. Normal moral adults would disagree with you, David. Normal moral adults would not find such "tones" of minors as "juicy". And again, the term denotes -your- interpretation of sex talk by minors as such. Moral adults would not be operating unlicensed transmitters on unauthorized frequencies, and then incorrectly use the term "civil disobedience" in a vain attempt to ease what little conscience they might have. It's always been you who has problems with other's consciences. But there is no comparison to dxing and freebading David, when it comes to your sexual deviances. BBTW, you need to look up the term civil disobedience again, as you have no clue what the term entails, despite being informed on numerous occasions. |
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:15:11 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 02:44:07 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: Did you miss this post, too, Dave? Frank, I'll choose which posts I wish to respond to and which ones I won't . Trying to bury me under a pile of nonsense is not going to work Frank. No, -you- don't work, Dave. You can't accept the fact that you are wrong, and when I post facts that you can't spin or obfuscate you simply ignore those posts and pick the posts that you feel you can work to your advantage. It's a bonehead tactic and you are too ignorant to see that it works to -my- advantange, not your's. The answer is A because loyalty must be earned, and American's have a very good long-term memory. Even if the American company is forced out of business by cheaper foreign competitors? Considering that other countries have no objection to using cheap foreign labor, and producing products cheaper, the U.S. company is now at a competitive disadvantage with those products which they are in direct competition from foreign companies. American workers could be easily protected with import tariffs; but Bush's butt has been kissed (and licked, sucked, wiped and powdered) by corporations seeking cheap labor, so he is pushing for open-border trade agreements with third-world countries. Tariffs are an overly naive and simplistic answer, which will not help. I'll tell you why. First off, the import tariff will raise the price of imported goods which drive up the costs that the American consumer pays. Then the worker will demand more in raises to compensate, and you now have inflation. Wrong. No, right. If you are going to claim that I am "wrong", protocol dictates that you provide corroborating evidence to back it up. Simply claiming that I'm wrong based on little more than your own ignorance of economics is not going to be seriously considered. Import tariffs drive up the cost of -imported- products, which in turn encourages -domestic- production and manufacturing. The prices will go up, as will the wages; Which translates to....... INFLATION! Inflation occurs when the costs increase faster than the wages (an explanation simplified for someone with your level of education). Import tariffs actually -reduce- inflation for the very simple reason that the export deficits are reduced and more American money stays in America. If you want to pay $500 again for a VCR or DVD player, and $400 again for a decent CB (Like it was in the 70's not even accounting for inflation) then maybe this might appeal to you. VCRs and CBs were expensive because of their popularity at the time, not because of inflation. But the problem is that the American public has become adjusted to receiving high American wages, while paying for cheaper imported goods. If the price of goods increases substantially, then the wages of the workers will have to jump to cover it. You are assuming the premises that 1) the cost of imported products will "increase substantially", and 2) that there are no domestic substitutes for those products. Both are wrong: The price of -any- product relies upon the laws of supply and demand. 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. That's why it's called a "free-market economy". Imposing import tariffs increases the costs to the manufacturers of the hammers from China, but the price remains the same because the demand hasn't changed. But because of the increased cost to China the supply from China will be smaller. That reduction in supply is met with an increased supply of hammers from the US manufacturers, who are now relieved of some of the foreign competition. In the process, more Americans are hired to make those hammers, which, in turn, improves the economic status of not only the company that manufactures the hammers, but also of the community that benefits from the jobs and the government that benefits from the taxes. Everybody wins except China. When that happens the cost of corporate direct labor and overhead goes up, and they have to raise the price of manufactured goods to cover it. And the cycle of inflation repeats. Part of the reason why the rate of inflation has been so low for the last several years is due to the fact that the cost of goods had actually dropped as corporations tighten their belts and outsource more of their labor. Demand for higher wages has fallen, and inflation remains in check. Wrong again. Inflation has been held in check by interference by the Federal Reserve. Greenspan sets the prime interest rate to control lending (which puts money into the economy), and with the buying and selling of T-bills. Despite this, inflation -does- occur because the major inflationary indicators are not perfect and the calculations are usually flawed to some extent. But because of this interference, there is no longer a free-market economy, and free-market economic models no longer apply. So it's possible to have inflation and recession at the same time, or have two or three economic markets operating independent of each other. Regardless of it's unnatural complexity, the economy is manipulated to the advantage of those that wield power over the Federal Reserve. And regardless of the economic impact of import tariffs, the Federal Reserve will control any inflation (to the extent that it can be controlled), with the added benefit that the country stops bleeding from huge export deficits. but the overall effect is that the domestic economy is stimulated, which more than compensates for any short-term dips. And for the record, it also reduces the amount paid for welfare since more people are working. I'm not sure where to start since you have such a myopic view of global economics. This isn't the USA solely owning it's own corporations any more. Practically all large corporations are multi-national to some degree. They compete in many markets of which the US is but one consumer. Tariffs will only help the domestic market. It will do little to help the corporation in the international market share. Find me one American that's willing to stand in the unemployment line so someone from India or China or Venezuela can have their job. Secondly, the U.S. is but ONE consumer of goods. American companies trying to compete in foreign markets will not have the protection of the tariff and they will wither under strong foreign competition which they will not be able to match. Also, other countries do not like tariff policies and would likely impose tariffs on our goods in retaliation to our tariffs on theirs. Surely you can figure out what would happen then. Wrong on both counts. American innovation and technology is, and has always been, one of the primary exports of this country. You blindly assume that Americans are the only ones who can master this area. Have you spent any time in the Pacific Rim lately? We're about to be eclipsed by Japan (If not already), and many other countries (such as India) are also closing in on us in technology related fields. Then we better get some better policies started pretty soon, huh? 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? Stimulate the industrial base and you stimulate people and businesses to be more innovative (instead of using the word as an advertising gimmick). You should write motivational slogans. Empty, hollow, and meaningless words designed to make us feel good, but carry absolutely no weight. There are plenty of people doing that already. Most of them work for auto manufacturers, insurance corporations, Bank of America, and political campaign organizations. But since you cannot provide substance for your claims, allow me to provide it for mine: http://web.infoweb.ne.jp/fairtradec/new/b031107.pdf This report outlines, among other things, what happens when a global organization, such as the WHO, reacts negatively to what they perceive as "protectionist" tactics such as tariffs. So tell me again how I am "wrong" about potential retaliation for any tariffs we may place on foreign made goods. Sure. Go to college and take Macro- and Micro-Economics. And since you are so gullible, try to avoid those neocon and WTO proxy websites. Tell me, would you pay 50 - 100% more for a TV or some other product just to keep the U.S. company here? Considering that the government is squeezing more and more money out of us in the form of taxes, and the costs of things like fuel are skyrocketing, we look for the best bargains in everything we buy. Because the taxes are on the Americans, not on the import corporations (e.g, Walmart, aka 'China Inc.') where they should be. See above. And that doesn't cover the foreign market. Would a European pay more for a U.S. made product over a foreign made product? Depends on where that 'foreign' product was made. Does it matter? If it's cheaper, they will buy it. I guess that's why Mercedes, Jags and BMW's sell so well, huh? Didn't you learn anything in our discussion about how a quality education is often preferred over a lesser degree? If you did, what part of your brain is unable to apply the underlying concept to other situations? So you posit that a Ford is on equal standing, quality wise, with a Mercedes? People will sometimes pay more for something if they perceive a greater value for it. Oh, you mean like if an employer sees a greater value in a better education? So I ask again, is the relative value of a Ford the same as that of a Mercedes? Would the Ford be able to compete on a price basis with a Mercedes? If not for the cheaper price of the domestic car, would they not lose all market share to those foreign companies if they were forced to compete on a purely quality basis? Finally, you see the light! Now hit the archives from a couple months ago and see how you flip-flopped on the issue. Besides the obvious pedigree and prestige that names like Mercedes bring to the table, there is also the issue of status. That's why idiots will pay thousands more for a Lexus, which is little more than a Toyota with a few superficial frills and a different emblem badge. I have to agree with you on that one. Why do you think sales of imported cars have become such a threat here? GM, Ford, and Mopar are all feeling the pinch. It used to be that the foreign cars were significantly more expensive (Mostly due to import tariffs), and the domestic product sold well because it was cheaper. Now, since the prices are fairly close, the perception of better quality that comes with the Japanese cars, has convinced people to abandon the "Buy American" motif, in favor of their own bottom line. The price difference in the past had little to do with import tariffs and much more to do with raw materials. That's why nowdays we cut down our own trees, ship them off to foreign countries to be made into plywood, which is shipped back and sold in the US for ridiculous prices. This is a direct result of "free trade" with foreign countries, not high labor costs in the US as many claim. Because of these free-trade agreements, restrictions were lifted for raw materials being exported but -not- for raw materials being used for domestic manufacturing. Same deal with imported products. If you are going to invoke the WTO to support your arguments then at least learn something about the dirty deals the US has made in its benefit. I'm suprised you haven't because Clinton made a few of those dirty deals. This example also speaks to your assumption of "superior American technology" and ingenuity. Don't look now, but we've been beaten at our own game. That's because you are ignoring the fact that technology is exported just as easily as wood. What ultimately happens to a U.S. corporation who loses a competitive edge? Any US corp that chooses to cut American jobs instead of lobbying for import tariffs against foreign competitors is, in the most tactful of terms, economically nearsighted. So, then, you would rather an American company keep it's American workforce in a patriotic corporate suicide attempt, as it folds under unmatchable competition from abroad? What if all US companies fold or move their corporate headquarters offshore? Then what? What if all US companies lobbied for import tariffs? What if there really were a man in the moon? It's more likely than your "mass corporate suicide" scenario. What happens when there are no more cheap labor countries like China? Can you spell double digit inflation??? How about 20% per yr for about ten yrs. Maybe even longer or higher inflation rates. Yes, inflation is a very real fear. No, it's not. It's a hope. Inflation, in a free market economy, is an 'equalizer' -- it's an effect of a surplus of cash in circulation, which usually ends up in the hands of those who need it the most. Historically, inflation hurts the rich and benefits the poor, which is something you never hear from the "left-wing, liberally biased media". Well that's true to an extent. Those who invest their money in fixed rate securities (retired people) will earn more interest, while those seeking to borrow, will pay more. But the rich are who generally create the jobs that the rest of us work at. Wrong. The failure of Reaganomics proved that people create their own jobs when the rich get too greedy. They do so out of necessity. Reagonomics was far from a failure. LOL! It is what stimulated the last 2 decades of economic growth, especially in the tech sector which was heavily made up of small, face-paced startup companies. You know, like Microsoft. And Enron, Worldcom, numerous Savings & Loans, etc, etc. If inflation cuts into their costs too much, they will have to reduce the workforce or make other cuts (outsource?) to keep the margins. It really doesn't matter since the US is no longer a free-market economy -- the Federal Reserve has tight (and probably illegal) control over the money supply and keeps the inflation rate down artificially. The Fed only controls the rate at which money is borrowed. Wrong. They also buy and sell T-bills, which either injects or removes money from the economy, respectively. Regardless, the prime interest rate controls the amount of money that is borrowed, and the amount of money borrowed has a direct effect on the amount of money circulating in the economy, even much more so than the buying and selling of T-bills. Any time the government mucks with the market, it upsets the balance of the free market. Why do you think healthcare costs are so high? Insurance companies. Probably the biggest legalized racket since organized religion. But when the standard of living equalizes, then there will be no further incentive to manufacture overseas. Then factors such as shipping costs will make domestic manufacturing attractive again for the U.S. market. Inflation may also be mitigated by market pressures. If people cannot afford to buy as much, demand goes down. When demand goes down, so does the price. That's free market 101. You obviously failed Economics 101, and probably never took Macro- or Micro-Economics. Sigh. You can't get through a post without an insult can you Mr Bartender? Nope. Can you get through a post without a demonstration of your ignorance and lack of education? I'm still waiting for something more significant than just your opposing opinion to substantiate that. Sounds like I need to make another list here pretty soon..... Cheap labor will always be available in any country that's poor in natural resources. There are many, and that's not going to change anytime soon. The fact that Iraq's new "government" refused to allow labor unions (a law imposed by Saddam) should be a good indication as to where the next market for cheap labor will be found. But Iraq is not poor in natural resources. But Iraq's natural resources are only partially owned and controlled by Iraq. They were fully owned by Iraq under Saddam, but after his overthrow many international conglomerates (mostly US and UK oil companies, most of which include the Bush family as stockholders) invoked claims that existed prior to Saddam. The people of Iraq are going to see hardly any of the money that comes from their own resources -- instead it's going right into the pockets of oil company fat-cats. I suppose I'm grasping at straws to ask that you back that up with something official. US/UK ownership and control of Iraq's oil prior to Saddam (Iraqi Oil Company, later known as Shell Oil) is well documented. Try Funk & Wagnall's. The fact that Saddam reclaimed Iraq's oil was not only documented by Western civilization but used as propaganda by Saddam. He even tried to reclaim oil fields that were stolen from Iraq by international charter long before Saddam took power (see Funk & Wagnall's for the history of Kuwait). Only one month after the US invasion, Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government. By January 2004, a "state-owned" oil company was created by James Baker (former Secretary of State, now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil) that favoured the US oil industry. Shell Oil (as well as several other US oil companies) quickly established exclusive contracts with this new Iraqi oil company. Any more dumb questions that you could have answered yourself by using the internet? In time the US will suffer. Prepare for China owning more an dmore of teh US debt and consequently the US' economy . Ok, We pretty much agree that the road ahead will be a bit bumpy. So what do we do about it? Can we do anything about it? Push your elected officials to do their job -- make them understand that they are lobbyists for their constituents, not the constituents of lobbyists for special interest groups or corporations. Well then we need to outlaw all corporate election contributions. Well gee, Dave, what a novel idea. Now try to get it passed eh? Push your elected officials to do their job -- make them understand that they are lobbyists for their constituents, not the constituents of lobbyists for special interest groups or corporations..... ......hmmmm, seems I've said all this before..... Getting the picture yet? Are you getting the picture that the government is supposed to work for the people? ----== 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 Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:59:06 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Exactly, as a certain faction (like yourself) who voted for Bush continue to mistakenly believe Bush had a majority of the people in the US vote for him (he didn't) Then how do you explain how he won? I explained this to you before -- read about Ivan the Terrible (assuming you can find it on the internet). It probably also had something to do with election fraud in Ohio and a few other states, the extent of which will probably not be fully known until after the Dems regain the WH. snip As many, many republicans have distanced themselves from Bush... A few uncertain doubters does not constitute "many". Dave, are you friggin' blind? The Republican party is splitting in half and you don't even see it? and to distance herself from some of her more vocal compadres. I guess she figures that we'll all forget her former leftist politics, and that farce that was supposed to be universal heathcare. That you consider healthcare for our own people as leftist politics while we continue to offer free health care to all the Iraqis who simply ask for it illustrates your level of comprehension. As is typical for you, you divert from one issue to another. I oppose all forms of socialized medicine whether it be for us or Iraqi's. I suppose you are able to pay for all your medical bills -- even catastrauphic injuries -- right out of your own pocket, huh? The majority makes the rules. It's fine that the rights of the minority are considered but it makes no logical sense that the needs of that minority outweighs the needs of the majority. It doesn't matter which group. When rights are being taken away or infringed upon, the needs you speak of far outweigh any perceived majority. You come across as "majority is always right" when it has been illustrated and accepted the majority has been wrong, especially with this administration. What is considered right and wrong is usually relative and depends upon the perspective of the majority. Wrong. Rights are not inherent to any majority group, despite what they and you feel. you are not special,....rights extend to all in this country, not merely your imagined moral majority. That has nothing to do with the concept of what is "right or wrong" and who sets the standard by which this is gauged. Well, in the "right or wrong" category you are certainly in the minority in this newsgroup. In fact, you -are- the minority. And, like it or not, from the time we are little kids in school, we learned that life is not always fair, and that those in the majority set the fads, trends, and rules whether the rest of us agree or not. Take slavery for example. I already did. Get your own examples to illustrate how majority rule is not always right. Majority rule is always right in the context of the time it is enacted. During the time of slavery, the majority believed it was an acceptable practice. Wrong. There was bitter debate about slavery during the Constitutional Congress. The reason slavery was left to the states was because they felt that unity was far more important than slavery. The issue was ultimately resolved during the Civil War, but existed long before. Eventually the majority changed their belief and decided that it was no longer an acceptable practice. Wrong again. The 'majority' prior to the Civil War included only white male citizens. After emancipation the 'majority' suddenly included blacks as well as whites, and a much better representation of the majority could be counted (although still not very well until after the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, and the civil rights movement of the 1960's). In no time in recent history has the minority successfully bent the will of the majority on major issues. Again, wrong. You claim that a majority of people wanted Bush to be president, yet only 30% of registered voters actually voted in the election (some of them not voting because they were prevented from voting, with the Supreme Court declaring that citizens do -not- have any right to vote). Just 15% is not a "majority" by any stretch of the imagination. Enough with the semantics, Dave -- address the facts. Change occurs when the majority recognizes that the time is right for a different direction. It is not a sudden thing, rather it is a gradual transition. Liberals have been attempting to affect political and social change through the indoctrination of young people and by the dissemination of liberally biased news for some time. Fortunately, events such as the rise of talk radio, the ability of people to seek alternative news sources through the internet, and exposure of some of the purveyors of liberal bias, has slowed down, if not reversed, this trend. Oh good God -- you've been brainwashed, Dave. Either that or you're a bona-fide paranoid. Get some professional help already. ----== 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 =---- |
David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
Of course you did, you caled it "juicy". Please do not embarrass yourself again by misleading yourself that anyone at all would believe a young man of the age you speak would consider any psychological factor concerning such talk. You don't know me very well (after all this time) do you? I don't know you at all, David, but your claims of where you find your fun, such as eavesdropping on minors speak of sex, are quite bizarre, especially when you are in your forties and continue to defend such practices and refer to the emotions you experience as "juicy" when speaking of the act. Why do you think I bother responding to you at all? You're my command performance, David. The "whys" are irrelevant except only to yourself, which has been reiterated, solidified and illustrated by yourself on numerous occasion by expressing your concerns over internet stranger's behavior off-line. Do you think I do it because I feel that you are a person of influence, or that the things you say have some intrinsic value? LMAO! If so, then you really are as narcissistic as I've thought. The world knows how you think, David, and it's quite troubling and upsetting to those of us who are concerned for the welfare of our children. Anyone who is mixed up with confused emotions and finds talk of sex by minors as "juicy", well, it doesn't matter at all what people like that (you) think. You're on the bottom rung of the evolutionary ladder. No, I do it for the psychological entertainment value that you provide. I love watching you bend even the most straightforward statements into convoluted fragments of the truth. I love watching you lie, and then back pedal to cover it up. I love driving you to dig up information about me, and end up getting much of it wrong, yet accuse ME of seeking information about you. This is greater entertainment than watching Homer Simpson say "Doh" for the hundred thousandth time. I've always enjoyed watching the human experience. As Frank alluded, you look to the inorrect mediums for your information. Homer Simpson is not real, David, but watching you cling to desperation and refer to such as "human expereince" tells all. Who needs scripted "reality" TV when the real world is your stage and regular people are here to perform, and all without scripts (But maybe with a little prodding). It also gives me insight into how people think and what things are important to them. Just like Dr. Jane Goodall studies primates in order to understand their social interaction, I do the same for humans. Informally, You mean uneducated. but it's fun watching people react predictably to programmed stimuli. On that note, you have never failed yet. Anything other than what I have just said, is purely your imagination running amuck. Your words and actions speak loud and clear to the world, David, as only you have this incredible belief only you can see yourself as you really are and that you are misunderstood to the point that you need reiterate and explain yourself to each and every person you disagree. .If someone is a thick and with the incredible comprehensively challenged as you are, I guess I do have to explain everything in simple basic terms. Which you have demonstrated throughout your posting history with all you disagree, David. Your errant behavior began long before I came along and tweaked you with your own offensive acts. No, actually it hasn't. Since you admitted incompetence with google, I suggest you get some assistance by someone you trust and feel isn't against you all the time. Try it again,,,,google, enter "Sandbagger" and "You mean" and you will indeed find your behavior began -long- before I entered your world illustrate your impotence and ignorance. You are the only one who sees fit to mince words, twist meanings, obfuscate the truth, make disingenuous statements, and project your failings on to others. Tell the world what "juicy" means to you, David. Nothing is more laughable (To the point of tears sometimes) than to hear you go off on other people and accuse them of having "communications deficits" when it is clear to anyone who's been here for more than a few weeks that it is YOU who can't seem to grasp the straight meaning. Wow,,you really are on the offensive today, David. Truth always sets you on the attack, but you can not distance yourself from your problems, they follow you everywhere, but please, feel free to continue to blame everyone who disagrees with you. It's no wonder you fall for liberal propaganda. In your convoluted mind, their logic probably makes sense. That's what you said to Frank. Once again, your idiocy is always the other person's fault. Otherwise you garner meanings that do not exist and assume something that was not expressly conveyed. "Juicy". So go ahead...'splain! LMAO! You plead and plead that everyone misunderstands you David, I have never claimed that "everyone misunderstands me" Sure you have, David, You do it in the manner of attempting to explain away "just what you really meant" after manking a post using words you have no clue their definition. I never use a word that I do not know the definition of. You have tried to make an issue of my vernacular, or grammatical usage, but in every case, I have provided the definitions of the words to support my usage. You have also been properly taught the use of "forensics" when you misapplied it and claimed your work with radios is much like forensics. You needed taught the term connotates a legal relation. So go ahead and explain, how even in the most remote manner, your radio work is even remotely "like" forensics. Your predictable response has always been to attack the source. internet dictionaries, it becomes harder for you to claim that I am "lying" about it as it is easily verifiable by anyone who cares. Believe whatever your damaged ego needs, David. Watching you talk smack about nothing you understand is extremely "verifiable" to most, as most don't need internet dictionaries, only you. The athetic part is, you still **** up the definitions and need to come out and apply your own definitions and tell the masses what you "really meant".(snicker). You have always had the greatest difficulties in conveying exactly what you mean, and as I said, google confirms your problems with this long before I ever tweaked your already problematic psyche. _ For countless examples of you not understanding the majority of people you disagree, one merely needs google "sandbagger" and the words "you mean". Cripes, there is enough reading for even the most remote layperson to get a handle on your communication deficits. .There you go again, projecting your own faults onto me. I'm not in the majority of those posts, David. There are tons of posts of you expressing communication difficulties, begging ALL you disagree "just what they mean". Google "Twistedhed" and "Lying" and see what you come up with. Now THAT statement illustrates perfectly just how short the string is you are attached and how clueless you are.Not only is your deficit rampant, you are unable to keep track with just who you blame for your misery. as I have given many people good advice from Radio, to practical matters. Which does not excuse your deficit. You mean YOUR deficit. I'm not the one whose posts are peppered with beg after beg seeking validation and clarification..those are all yours. YOU are the only one who does not understand me, You told Frank he couldn't understand your politics. People will argue politics until the cows come home. Both sides claim to have the "facts", while accusing the other side of "propagandizing". All I tried to do with Frank, is to show him that his political beliefs were based on no more credible information than mine were. Even after he hypocritically tried to discredit my sources as "propaganda" while offering up his own propaganda (Which he claimed to be "fact") as proof of such. All he had to do was say that he believes what he wants to believe, based on his own intrinsic core values. But instead he tried to walk the intellectual high road. There is the pattern that affects you. Most everyone walks the "intellectual high road" compared to you. This is where your self-degradation comes in to play, as other's intellect has always been deeemed a threat by yourself, especially when you disagree with a poster and it is shown you are wrong. You have always expressed a great difficulty in accepting you are wrong. If you knew half of what you think you do, this would be a catalyst for you,,a wakeup call, but as one in their forties who continues to call sex talk among underaged girls as "juicy", what you say is on the level of sexual deviants. But all I have to do is hold up a mirror to every claim he makes at me, and the same rules apply right back. It's not about rules, David, as you have never practiced the golden rule. You can not select which rules apply to others and that has always been one of your major malfunctions. You seek status and were denied it among these pages, even after you demanded respect by virtue of your hammie license....such clamoring for respect turned to foot stomping and demands and you have never been the same. You said Shark couldn't understand the laws in your state because he didn't live there Well yea, how can someone who doesn't live here have any experience with the process of the LEO's here? David, the laws in Pa are a separate subject than those charged with adminstering them. Shark said nothing of the LEO's process, those were -your- unsolicited, unproved, and steadfast refusals to substantiate anything you invoked. One can most certainly understand the laws in your state with education. Shark educated himself and -you- concerning the laws in your state that -you- said were explained to you by LEOS you refuse to name or substantiate, yet you beg others to substantiate for their claims. In fact, you always invoke unsolicited claims of grandeure when referring to yourself. Steadfast refusal to provide for all your unsolicited claims while you beg others for the same, well, ...anyone can see that your refusals to provide for your claims to all who ask is another in a lng line of failures you present. I admit quite readily that there are many laws in California that I am not familiar with. and Shark showed there are laws in your own state of which you are not familiar, and neiher are your phony LEOS. I have no reason to be. I don't live there. There are many similarities, but there are also differences. No one mentioned California law, David, except you. Shark produced proof that one can indeed et a speeding ticket in your state for going less than 5 MPH under the posted limit, despite your objections claiming otherwise. What proof did he offer? Work on that retainment value, David. You are the only one that can take self-denial and morph it into a belief system to protect your already fragile psyche. He offered nothing but his own opinionated claim that "a cop can write a ticket for anything if he wants", which is a ridiculous statement to make. If the cop has any hope of having that ticket stand up in court (Which he would have to appear at), then it better be legitimate. All one would have to do is show up in court with a copy of statute 3368, and the ticket goes away in most cases. I posted the statutes that clearly define the speed tolerances that are in effect in the Commonwealth of Pa. They clearly supported my claims in the vast majority of cases, stopwatches and tailgating notwithstanding. No one ever took issue with the "majority" of cases in Pa. only the one of which you were wrong. You said a cop can not issuea ticket for going less than 5 MPH,,,you were wrong. So who are you going to believe, the opinion of an out of state resident, professing a gut feeling, or the actual laws printed in black and white? Certainly not you, David, You have more excuses that Carter had liver pills regarding your unsolicited claims. You invoke LEOS on your own free will, to the extent of claiming them as personal friends of yours. When it was shown they gave you erroneous information, you attacked the poster, not the information. You invoked schooling, as you felt it important enough as to lend credibility of which you lack, yet when you are asked to provide for all your claims, all you do is attack those who illustrate your lies and bull****. You pattern has never changed David. You are full of ****, you are a habitual liar, and you have no formal education in anything you claim. In other words, the majority of your claims have been decimated and found to be lies utilizing -your- unsolicited yet often invoked "statistical probaility" factor. You (and he) lost that one big time. No David, there is jo win or lose on usenet David, and as Frank atutely illustrrated, your life is so incomplete, you need to tune in here for your challenges,as you take them where you find them. Why you continue to bring it up only shows the depths of your psychological problems. =A0 Gee David, if you managed to provide for any of your claims, your self-delusions of grandeur and selfqualifications may have had an air of validity, but self-validation is only done by those who have self-image and confidence problems, whihc would explain your need for redundant and unsolicited claims concerning yourself. One reason for that is in your inability to comprehend simple sentences or apply proper definitions to words. Actually David, and I'm not the only one who has pointed this out to you, it's because you misuse words of which you have no clue their definition. .Name them. Already named several. And in the proper context in which I used them. =A0 There was no proper context in which you used them..that's the gist of your problems. =A0This is probably why there are so many posts with you not comprehending what others say to you. LOL..again try the google with your words "Do you mean" or "did you mean". The number of posts made by you seeking clarification to other's words are numerable, yet, your knee jerk reaction is to blame another. Do the search David, it's not the "other", it's you all throughout your posting history who can ot comprehend what others tell you. Despite your paranoia, it's not just me David, there are many many others in those returns which have you expressing difficulties. The ony common theme in ALL the posts, is you disagreed with each and every one of those of which you needed to seek clarification. This holds with your need for validation. Your lying again. Yea, well, denial ain't a river in Egypt and only you have admitted to being confused and not knowing how to use google. I have no trouble communicating with anyone. Anyone, that is, who has normal mental faculties. But of course,,,all those people you disagreed with in google and beg clarification have the problems, not you. But during the course of communication, especially on technical issues, one often finds the need for some additional information, or clarification. No David, not "one",,-you-. You are the -only- one among this group whose posts are rife with posts begging people to explain what they really "mean" as you have a most difficult time communicating with all those you disagree. It's your character flaw, David, and you are unable to get a grip on it. It is far better, and much more polite, to ask for clarification than to assume a meaning when it is not clear or forthcoming. It's clear to all in the google history except you, as -you- are the -only- one beggin people to clarify what they said, as -you- have a most extreme difficulty in comprehending the majority of people with who you disagree. But that's been one of your primary problems, you jump to conclusions, often the wrong ones, rather than getting that clarification. Don't worry, we won't (can't) think any less of you if you can't understand what someone is trying to say. We'll try to speak a little slower next time. It was not illegal at the time I was engaged in listening. It was. This is another area concernig the law of which you are extremely ignorant. .There was NO law preventing interception of cordless phones in the 1980's. None, nada, zilch. Prove me wrong if you can. And I'll laugh at your attempts. You've been proved wrong, such as on the roger beep issue, and most -have- laughed at you, David. .The roger beep issue does not equate to, or .bear any relevance to the ECPA and cordless phone reception issue. Your attempt at .deflection is duly noted. It stands with the familiar theme of you not knowing the laws. |
On 07 Jun 2005 11:02:58 GMT, Steveo wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: BTW, how was Dayton? Nerd festival. :P That's a shame. It used to be interesting, from an electronic flotsam perspective. Some hams have a er... ah... problem with personal hygiene though...... Dave "Sandbagger" |
David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
Any scanner user could do it. No David,,the last time this was brought up, you tried and failed with this excuse. When it was illustrated what a pervert you are, you come back with the defense that the incident occurred years and years ago, when you were a younger man. It appears you can remember vividly the details of such an incident that many years ago, but can not recal a simple Phelps antenna when inquired of a comment you made a few year's previous alluding to such. Nevertheless, back when you were that young, the scanners were not digital, but crystals, and contrary to your claim "any scanner user could do it", that simply was not the case back then. In fact, cordless phones came on the market in 1980 and were ALL 27 MHZ phones, a specific crystal that did NOT come imbedded in "any scanner". All of this coupled together with your oft-invoked "statistical probablility" factor, makes you to be one big freegin' liar! LMAO! Your lack of age and experience is glaringly apparent in this statement. First off, the first programmable scanners came out in the late 70's. Look into the Bearcat 101, the SBE Optiscan, the Regency "Whamo 10" and the Tenelec. My Bearcat 210xl was purchased in 1980 or 81, and you can clearly see it in the pictures of my station in 1985 and 1990 as shown on my website. Secondly cordless phones were not on 27 MHz (What idiot would put cordless phones on the already crowded CB band?). The same type idiot that comes out here pretending he knows all kinds of things about all kinds of things, but knows jack **** intimately. www.affordablephones.net/HistoryCordless.htm LMAO,,the feds did it, genius. They most certainly WERE on 27 in their beginning. The 1st 49 MHZ came about in or around 1986. Talk that smack, David. Wrong. The first 49 Mhz (with 1.7 Mhz return) was on the market earlier than 1986, because I was listening to them long before then. Sure, David,,"the info is wrong" again, eh? Instead of relying on the compiled history of the phones, one should rely on you....after all, your memory has proved astute regarding such things that normal ops remember, such as antenna brands they used over the years. I bought my Yaesu FT-757 in 1984 (I still .have the receipt), and I used it to catch the cordless phone base frequency, while the Bearcat scanner was tuned to the initial 10 (Later upped to 25) 49 Mhz frequencies. In fact, you've just given me the inspiration for another article for my website. I'll provide all the details there. Ah,,,so you were wrong claiming the first phones were 27 MHZ and I was wrong concerning the first programmable scanners..at least I can admit it. The pain you are experiencing over being wrong will go away as soon as you can accept it and move on from it instead of dwelling on it like you do so often. It's a darn shame that the cordless phones came along when they did. They pretty much ruined the 49 Mhz band as an unlicensed hobby band. Prior to about 1982, there was a budding group of low power experimenters running 100 mW (And in some cases modified 6 meter ham gear) radios and trying to work DX there. When the phones and baby monitors arrived, that was the death knell for that band for hobbyists and experimenters. I still have my old Lafayette HA-240 on 49.860 Mhz. The 46/49 Mhz phones (49 Mhz handset, 46 Mhz base) started around 1986. While I won't deny that the very first phones might have actually been on 27 MHz, You already denied it, David. Something is very wrong with you. I was not into listening to them then (It would have been a lot easier to do. Any modified CB could have done it). I don't think those early phones sold all that well. I never saw or heard one in my area. As usual, your lack of knowledge of the subject was illustrated perfectly. Such lack of knowldge of the subject prevents you from discussing it further. My knowledge was from direct personal .experience. I know you're too young to .remember back that far, but the first truly legitimate cordless phones used 49 Mhz for the handset and 1.7 Mhz (Just above the AM broadcast band) for the base unit. Wrong. The first available cordless phones were 27 MHZ. Find an old timer and ask them if you don't believe me. You're the one claiming the info is wrong, David, but that burden of providing for your claim is always to great a cross for you to bear. If the FCC or the phone lobby doesn't want people listening in, they need to block out those frequencies or scramble the transmissions. Then the same logic can be applied to use of the freeband. .=A0=A0How? The method was your idea. The fact that you once again speak before thinking is illustrated by no one better than yourself. .Which means what exactly? No one else is having trouble following. Ask for some help with just what it means. As usual, you are talking a bunch of circular .nonsense. Someday, I hope to read a nice long E-mail from you outlining just how your postings were all deliberate attempts at psychological tweaking. I can far better respect you for being that, than a unconscious dyslexic thinker. I'm a freebander, David, and that is your problem and has always been your problem ever since you claimed you were due respect by virtue of your license. Such arrogance practically guarantees you to be the punch clown of a cb group. My faith in humanity is greatly lowered knowing that such people exist and actually think they know something. Especially when their claims are all unsubstantiated like yours. It was always a crime to eavesdrop on one's private telephone conversation using electronic equipment, David. It violates federal wiretap law, but your position of "thinking like a criminal" (your words) is interesting. .Wire tapping did not apply to radio devices at that time. It was still considered a telephone and as such was subject to the rules and regulations governing telpephones.. .Nope. There was no provision in any wiretap law at that time that specifically addresses reception of cordless phones. Here is once again where your incompetence comes into the picture. The fact that they were cordless did not absolve them from the federal laws governing telephone devices. So by using your logic, if it isn't specifically called out as illegal, assume that it is legal. That was the glaring loophole in the wiretap law. No loophole at all, just another wrong claim from you. Then I'm sure you will provide the exact verbiage to substantiate your claim? Yea, well the group was sure you would provide for your technical competence claims concerning your unsolicited invocation of a tech school you felt important enough to mention, but, (sigh), as usual, you provide nada g/. There could be no reasonable expectation of privacy when you run unencrypted analog FM signals over a band that is generally easy to receive by "common" radio receivers (Such as a scanner). One's expectations of privacy has nothing to do with the law, David. .It has a great deal to do with it. Again, prove me wrong if you can (But I won't .hold my breath). I've proved you wrong so many times with radio law that it's downright dandy giving you the cord and watching you so eagerly jump to wrap it around your neck. You are so quick to jump these days that you rant on about things you have no clue. .The only thing I have been wrong on was the roger beep issue. And you didn't prove that. Right David, everyone else that tried to explain the law to you the manner in which I did was all a coincidence and collective lucky guesses. Feel better, dude? I had to get the info myself from the FCC. Yep, after you were instructed to becasue your ignorance and arrogance would not permit your ego to believe everyone else who was telling you that you were wrong. As for anything else, you're just blowing smoke. Now, I'll say this as directly and as succinctly as possible so that you will (hopefully) .understand it. It is you that is always begging repeat clairifications of those you disagree, David. Projection of your dilemmas soothers you temporarily. Please provide the exact verbiage in the federal wiretap law, as is was around 1984, that specifically addresses reception of cordless phones. (sigh) I am going to offer you the chance to stop filling the shoes of hypocrisy. Proper communication (something you have difficulties with) dictates when one makes a claim, it is up to that person to provide to substantiate the claim when challenged, as the burden of proof is usually on the claimant. When one is asked to provide for their claims, one is supposed to answer for those claims prior to demanding and foot stomping and begging others to so when you have failed to do so. You were asked several times by several people to provide for your ever-mounting lists of unsolicited claims. Your refusal to do so prevents you from asking the same of others. I am more than willing to post the links to the ECPA, showing the date that it became effective and what it covers. Yet for some reason, you have spasms when asked to do so for your past lies, such as your tech school, your LEO friends, everything -you- mentioned or brought up. Try reading what applied to your situation, not what you think gave you permission to violate the law. The ECPA is what specifically addresses wireless phone devices. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. If you are going to break the law, you should at least be educated about the law you break and penalties you face. .Remember that each time you run your unlicensed transmitter on the freeband..... My Ten-Tec needs no license or acceptance. True, for the amateur bands where authority to operate is granted to a properly licensed amateur (Which BTW, are you one?), Irrelevant where you are concerned. and type acceptance of radio gear is not required. However, the radio is not authorized to operate anywhere other than the amateur bands except by license or authorization (such as MARS or CAP). Certain other bands require type acceptance of radio gear. The land mobile service (which is what the freeband was once part of) does (As does the CB band). So your Ten Tec is not type accepted to operate on the land mobile band, and you are not licensed as an operator on that band. That's two strikes. You said my radio was unlicensed on the freeband..this would be compared to what.......do you have an example of a licensed transmitter on the freeband besides the ones I already provided in the past? See, this is another example of your **** poor retainment skills, as you have been informed on repeated occasion that as an extra, you ought know such things, but then again you are the deviant exception to hammie ops, not the norm. You are the one who doesn't understand radio law. I'm not the one who denied roger beeps were legal based on my own personal feelings despite the contingency trying to correct your ignorance of the law,,,-you- were. No matter how many time you spew your convoluted understanding of the law, it will not make it right. Again, the only person that has illustrated a grave misinterpretation of any law has been yourself. You are not authorized to operate a transmitter on the freeband without a license. And after all these years you still can not convince yourself that it doesn't matter to me, only you. It is not a band authorized by rule, therefore the operator requires a station license. If you don't have one, you are not authorized to run there, Period. No one ever tried to say otherwise, David,,,where exactly is it that you became lost on such subjects? David T. Hall Jr. ."Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
Dave Hall wrote:
On 07 Jun 2005 11:02:58 GMT, Steveo wrote: Dave Hall wrote: BTW, how was Dayton? Nerd festival. :P That's a shame. It used to be interesting, from an electronic flotsam perspective. Some hams have a er... ah... problem with personal hygiene though...... True. It was ok but the used gear there wasn't any cheaper, or better than what is on ebay really. I'll try Findlay next. Ever been there? |
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 07:35:17 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:15:11 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 02:44:07 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: Did you miss this post, too, Dave? Frank, I'll choose which posts I wish to respond to and which ones I won't . Trying to bury me under a pile of nonsense is not going to work Frank. No, -you- don't work, Dave. You keep saying that. Maybe someday you'll convince yourself. You can't accept the fact that you are wrong, Sure I can, when it's true. and when I post facts that you can't spin or obfuscate you simply ignore those posts and pick the posts that you feel you can work to your advantage. When are you going to post any facts? It's a bonehead tactic and you are too ignorant to see that it works to -my- advantange, not your's. Seeing that you seem to be the only one who cares enough to respond to me on these topics, the only "advantage" you seem to have is contained largely within your own mind. Now, I'll address your valid points below...... Tariffs are an overly naive and simplistic answer, which will not help. I'll tell you why. First off, the import tariff will raise the price of imported goods which drive up the costs that the American consumer pays. Then the worker will demand more in raises to compensate, and you now have inflation. Wrong. No, right. If you are going to claim that I am "wrong", protocol dictates that you provide corroborating evidence to back it up. Simply claiming that I'm wrong based on little more than your own ignorance of economics is not going to be seriously considered. And I'm still waiting for that evidence.......... Import tariffs drive up the cost of -imported- products, which in turn encourages -domestic- production and manufacturing. The prices will go up, as will the wages; Which translates to....... INFLATION! Inflation occurs when the costs increase faster than the wages (an explanation simplified for someone with your level of education). Evidently too complex for someone of your education. I prefer to reference such sources as: http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/A...efinitions.asp In essence inflation is the devaluation of currency due to a sharp rise in the amount of it in circulation. Since the value of the currency drops, the individual prices must rise to compensate. Import tariffs actually -reduce- inflation for the very simple reason that the export deficits are reduced and more American money stays in America. Tariffs have nothing to do with inflation directly. But it can stimulate it by initiating price increases. As I showed before, placing tariffs on imported goods will often result in retaliatory actions from other countries, and we'll have accomplished nothing. If you want to pay $500 again for a VCR or DVD player, and $400 again for a decent CB (Like it was in the 70's not even accounting for inflation) then maybe this might appeal to you. VCRs and CBs were expensive because of their popularity at the time, not because of inflation. No, they were expensive because the cost to manufacture them was much higher. Both advances in technology and in manufacturing as well as finding cheaper sources of labor have resulted in price reductions. But the problem is that the American public has become adjusted to receiving high American wages, while paying for cheaper imported goods. If the price of goods increases substantially, then the wages of the workers will have to jump to cover it. You are assuming the premises that 1) the cost of imported products will "increase substantially", and 2) that there are no domestic substitutes for those products. And that's mostly true, despite your inability to acknowledge it. Both are wrong: So you say, but I have yet to see any facts to back it up. The price of -any- product relies upon the laws of supply and demand. That's true to an extent. 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. The price is set by the lowest price that someone is will to sell it for. 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. Look as gasoline. We all bitch about the high cost of gasoline. But we still pay it, because we need it. That's why it's called a "free-market economy". Imposing import tariffs increases the costs to the manufacturers of the hammers from China, but the price remains the same because the demand hasn't changed. That is where YOU are wrong. The tariff cost is added to the selling price, in order to give the American competitor some relief. If the Chinese manufacturer ate the cost, and kept the lower price, the American company would not be able to compete at that level. The whole point of tariffs is to RAISE the price of cheaper foreign imports in order to stimulate domestic competition. Remember the price is set by the lowest bidder. People will buy the cheaper goods, all other factors being equal. Without those (tariff imposed) higher prices, the American company doesn't have a chance, baring American workers suddenly becoming willing to work for 25 cents an hour. But because of the increased cost to China the supply from China will be smaller. That reduction in supply is met with an increased supply of hammers from the US manufacturers, who are now relieved of some of the foreign competition. They will only be relieved and offered a chance to increase supply if their price now becomes competitive. And that will only happen if the imported good's price rises from the tariff. In the process, more Americans are hired to make those hammers, Sorry, we can automate that process. And we can outsource customer support and logistics to India. which, in turn, improves the economic status of not only the company that manufactures the hammers, but also of the community that benefits from the jobs and the government that benefits from the taxes. Everybody wins except China. 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. When that happens the cost of corporate direct labor and overhead goes up, and they have to raise the price of manufactured goods to cover it. And the cycle of inflation repeats. Part of the reason why the rate of inflation has been so low for the last several years is due to the fact that the cost of goods had actually dropped as corporations tighten their belts and outsource more of their labor. Demand for higher wages has fallen, and inflation remains in check. Wrong again. Proof? Inflation has been held in check by interference by the Federal Reserve. Yea, that's why they had been lowering the interest rate to just around 1%. Only recently has there been any action on the part of the FED to raise that rate. Over the last few years, companies have been worried about DEFLATION. Greenspan sets the prime interest rate to control lending (which puts money into the economy), and with the buying and selling of T-bills. And imagine that, the mortgage rates, which are tied to the 10 year T-Bill has been the lowest in over 40 years. Despite this, inflation -does- occur because the major inflationary indicators are not perfect and the calculations are usually flawed to some extent. 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. But because of this interference, there is no longer a free-market economy, and free-market economic models no longer apply. No ****. But things like tariffs are also interfering with the free market. Outsourcing, free and open trade, and elimination of protectionist tariffs support the free market. If you favor tariffs, limits on trade, and penalties for outsourcing, then you don't support a free market. So it's possible to have inflation and recession at the same time, No kidding. The two aren't necessarily joined at the hip. Just look at the Carter years. We had both then. or have two or three economic markets operating independent of each other. Regardless of it's unnatural complexity, the economy is manipulated to the advantage of those that wield power over the Federal Reserve. And regardless of the economic impact of import tariffs, the Federal Reserve will control any inflation (to the extent that it can be controlled), with the added benefit that the country stops bleeding from huge export deficits. There are some thing the government can do. But they are small. They can give tax incentives to companies who maintain a large percentage of it's workforce here. But beyond that and you risk altering the free market, as well as drawing the fire of the EU and the WTO for what they will perceive as "protectionists" tactics. Remember, what's good for us, is bad for them, so they will fight any effort to apply tariffs. but the overall effect is that the domestic economy is stimulated, which more than compensates for any short-term dips. And for the record, it also reduces the amount paid for welfare since more people are working. I'm not sure where to start since you have such a myopic view of global economics. This isn't the USA solely owning it's own corporations any more. Practically all large corporations are multi-national to some degree. They compete in many markets of which the US is but one consumer. Tariffs will only help the domestic market. It will do little to help the corporation in the international market share. Find me one American that's willing to stand in the unemployment line so someone from India or China or Venezuela can have their job. And just what relevance does this have to the big picture? No one said that outsourcing is good for the american factory worker. But hiding your head in the sand as to the reasons why it happens will not make it go away. Make it harder for American companies to do business here (And abroad), and it's a small matter to move to Bermuda or the Bahamas or any other country with little trade restrictions. Congratulations! Not only have you outsourced the manufacturing, you've now driven away the management as well. Secondly, the U.S. is but ONE consumer of goods. American companies trying to compete in foreign markets will not have the protection of the tariff and they will wither under strong foreign competition which they will not be able to match. Also, other countries do not like tariff policies and would likely impose tariffs on our goods in retaliation to our tariffs on theirs. Surely you can figure out what would happen then. Wrong on both counts. American innovation and technology is, and has always been, one of the primary exports of this country. You blindly assume that Americans are the only ones who can master this area. Have you spent any time in the Pacific Rim lately? We're about to be eclipsed by Japan (If not already), and many other countries (such as India) are also closing in on us in technology related fields. Then we better get some better policies started pretty soon, huh? Sort of like handing Captain Smith a bucket as the bow of the Titanic slipped under the waves? 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. Stimulate the industrial base and you stimulate people and businesses to be more innovative (instead of using the word as an advertising gimmick). You should write motivational slogans. Empty, hollow, and meaningless words designed to make us feel good, but carry absolutely no weight. There are plenty of people doing that already. Most of them work for auto manufacturers, insurance corporations, Bank of America, and political campaign organizations. And in various bars. But since you cannot provide substance for your claims, allow me to provide it for mine: http://web.infoweb.ne.jp/fairtradec/new/b031107.pdf This report outlines, among other things, what happens when a global organization, such as the WTO, reacts negatively to what they perceive as "protectionist" tactics such as tariffs. So tell me again how I am "wrong" about potential retaliation for any tariffs we may place on foreign made goods. Sure. Go to college and take Macro- and Micro-Economics. And since you are so gullible, try to avoid those neocon and WTO proxy websites. So you deny that the EU was about to pass retaliatory measures to counter the steel tariffs? You refuse to acknowledge the influence of the WTO on global business practices? Are you one of those slackers who was protesting the WTO in Seattle the other year, when all that violence occurred? Facts only please. I guess that's why Mercedes, Jags and BMW's sell so well, huh? Didn't you learn anything in our discussion about how a quality education is often preferred over a lesser degree? If you did, what part of your brain is unable to apply the underlying concept to other situations? So you posit that a Ford is on equal standing, quality wise, with a Mercedes? People will sometimes pay more for something if they perceive a greater value for it. Oh, you mean like if an employer sees a greater value in a better education? Not the same thing. A Mercedes earned it's pedigree and reputation and that pedigree and name recognition is worth money alone. On the other hand, if you went to a 4 year school, over a 2 year school, unless you worse a shirt that said "I went to a 4 years college, hire me", you would have to prove your pedigree. I agree that the intrinsic value is there. But the public perception isn't necessarily there as well. So I ask again, is the relative value of a Ford the same as that of a Mercedes? Would the Ford be able to compete on a price basis with a Mercedes? If not for the cheaper price of the domestic car, would they not lose all market share to those foreign companies if they were forced to compete on a purely quality basis? Finally, you see the light! Now hit the archives from a couple months ago and see how you flip-flopped on the issue. How have I flip flopped? You can't make an apples and oranges comparison and apply the same rules. Besides the obvious pedigree and prestige that names like Mercedes bring to the table, there is also the issue of status. That's why idiots will pay thousands more for a Lexus, which is little more than a Toyota with a few superficial frills and a different emblem badge. I have to agree with you on that one. Wow! A banner day. Why do you think sales of imported cars have become such a threat here? GM, Ford, and Mopar are all feeling the pinch. It used to be that the foreign cars were significantly more expensive (Mostly due to import tariffs), and the domestic product sold well because it was cheaper. Now, since the prices are fairly close, the perception of better quality that comes with the Japanese cars, has convinced people to abandon the "Buy American" motif, in favor of their own bottom line. The price difference in the past had little to do with import tariffs and much more to do with raw materials. There were import tariffs on Japanese cars (But not trucks). I bought a new Suzuki Samurai in 1988 and the dealer had to add the back seat since without the back seat, it could be classified as a truck and avoid the tariff on cars. That's why nowdays we cut down our own trees, ship them off to foreign countries to be made into plywood, which is shipped back and sold in the US for ridiculous prices. That's also why I used to pay taxes and subsidized the cost of building a nearby nuke plant which, now that it's operating, sells its electric to New York, and rather than the electric bills dropping as first promised, we're strapped with the cost, while seeing none of the benefit. This is a direct result of "free trade" with foreign countries, not high labor costs in the US as many claim. Because of these free-trade agreements, restrictions were lifted for raw materials being exported but -not- for raw materials being used for domestic manufacturing. If true, that's an oversight that should be corrected. We should not penalize domestic manufacture. But Ross Perot was right. NAFTA did result in a large sucking noise, as jobs moved south of the border. Same deal with imported products. If you are going to invoke the WTO to support your arguments then at least learn something about the dirty deals the US has made in its benefit. I'm suprised you haven't because Clinton made a few of those dirty deals. I consider NAFTA a dirty deal for this country. But the WTO is the economic equivalent of the U.N. It represents the economic interests of many countries. For a global market to work fairly for everyone, such an organization is needed. But just like the U.N. it can be corrupted by the allure of money. This example also speaks to your assumption of "superior American technology" and ingenuity. Don't look now, but we've been beaten at our own game. That's because you are ignoring the fact that technology is exported just as easily as wood. Even easier. The internet makes it as easy to access computers in India, as it does to access the servers in the next room. I am hardly ignoring it. I am WELL aware of it. I can telecommute, video conference, and speed dial offices in Taiwan, Mexico, the U.K, India, and Argentina as well as all over this country. Other than not being able to shake hands, the transactions are the same. Physical borders mean nothing in cyberspace. What if all US companies lobbied for import tariffs? What if there really were a man in the moon? It's more likely than your "mass corporate suicide" scenario. You don't understand. Corporations operate in a global marketplace. If they don't make profits here, they'll make them elsewhere. The bottom like is making money and enhancing shareholder value. The last thing they want to do is rock the boat and risk alienating their foreign business partners. Wrong. The failure of Reaganomics proved that people create their own jobs when the rich get too greedy. They do so out of necessity. Reagonomics was far from a failure. LOL! It is what stimulated the last 2 decades of economic growth, especially in the tech sector which was heavily made up of small, face-paced startup companies. You know, like Microsoft. And Enron, Worldcom, numerous Savings & Loans, etc, etc. They were all successful. It only took the greed of a few top dogs to bring them down. Long after Reagan was president. If inflation cuts into their costs too much, they will have to reduce the workforce or make other cuts (outsource?) to keep the margins. It really doesn't matter since the US is no longer a free-market economy -- the Federal Reserve has tight (and probably illegal) control over the money supply and keeps the inflation rate down artificially. Adding tariffs only exacerbates that problem. The Fed only controls the rate at which money is borrowed. Wrong. They also buy and sell T-bills, which either injects or removes money from the economy, respectively. That's pretty much what I said. Regardless, the prime interest rate controls the amount of money that is borrowed, and the amount of money borrowed has a direct effect on the amount of money circulating in the economy, even much more so than the buying and selling of T-bills. And the amount of money circulating affects the valuation of currency which is a prime factor of inflation. Any time the government mucks with the market, it upsets the balance of the free market. Why do you think healthcare costs are so high? Insurance companies. Probably the biggest legalized racket since organized religion. Insurance is a concept that has grown to a big green monster. Healthcare insurance is a perfect example of what happens when you artificially increase demand, without capping the supply side. Like you said before, the price of any good or service is ultimate set to what people are willing to pay for it. As long as insurance allows people to afford care that they would otherwise not be able to afford, the incentive is there to raise the price of those services. And that's exactly what has happened. But when the standard of living equalizes, then there will be no further incentive to manufacture overseas. Then factors such as shipping costs will make domestic manufacturing attractive again for the U.S. market. Inflation may also be mitigated by market pressures. If people cannot afford to buy as much, demand goes down. When demand goes down, so does the price. That's free market 101. I'm still waiting for something more significant than just your opposing opinion to substantiate that. Sounds like I need to make another list here pretty soon..... Please do. Simply saying "You're wrong" without providing backup data, only shows your slanted opinion. But Iraq's natural resources are only partially owned and controlled by Iraq. They were fully owned by Iraq under Saddam, but after his overthrow many international conglomerates (mostly US and UK oil companies, most of which include the Bush family as stockholders) invoked claims that existed prior to Saddam. The people of Iraq are going to see hardly any of the money that comes from their own resources -- instead it's going right into the pockets of oil company fat-cats. I suppose I'm grasping at straws to ask that you back that up with something official. US/UK ownership and control of Iraq's oil prior to Saddam (Iraqi Oil Company, later known as Shell Oil) is well documented. Yea, so? Try Funk & Wagnall's. The fact that Saddam reclaimed Iraq's oil was not only documented by Western civilization but used as propaganda by Saddam. He even tried to reclaim oil fields that were stolen from Iraq by international charter long before Saddam took power (see Funk & Wagnall's for the history of Kuwait). So you are now attempting to justify Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990? Only one month after the US invasion, Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government. Temporarily. By January 2004, a "state-owned" oil company was created by James Baker (former Secretary of State, now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil) that favoured the US oil industry. Shell Oil (as well as several other US oil companies) quickly established exclusive contracts with this new Iraqi oil company. This is an interim arrangement and only supposed to be in place until the Iraqi government becomes stable enough to take over for themselves. Push your elected officials to do their job -- make them understand that they are lobbyists for their constituents, not the constituents of lobbyists for special interest groups or corporations. Well then we need to outlaw all corporate election contributions. Well gee, Dave, what a novel idea. Now try to get it passed eh? Push your elected officials to do their job -- make them understand that they are lobbyists for their constituents, not the constituents of lobbyists for special interest groups or corporations..... .....hmmmm, seems I've said all this before..... You do have a penchant for redundancy and repetition. Getting the picture yet? Are you getting the picture that the government is supposed to work for the people? Key word: "supposed". Reality it works for those who cry the loudest. Large amounts of money seem to amplify those cries....... Once again, you talk idealistically. I talk realistically. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home/ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:07:12 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: (snipped) I can always tell when I push you to your psychological limit. You write epic length diatribes, replete with higher than normal typos, spelling errors and repeated redundant statements. To that end, you perform exactly to expectations. My job in this thread is done........ Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:59:32 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : big snip The price of -any- product relies upon the laws of supply and demand. That's true to an extent. No, that's true for any product or service. That's why they are call the LAWS of supply and demand. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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". Very basic terminology from Econ 101. And one more thing: the government -loves- to tax any product that is inelastic because it doesn't affect the demand for the product. That's why alcohol, tobacco and gasoline are taxed so heavily. big snip But because of this interference, there is no longer a free-market economy, and free-market economic models no longer apply. No ****. But things like tariffs are also interfering with the free market. Outsourcing, free and open trade, and elimination of protectionist tariffs support the free market. If you favor tariffs, limits on trade, and penalties for outsourcing, then you don't support a free market. Import tariffs interfere with a free -international- market, 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. 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? 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. 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. At what school did -you- learn economics, Dave? "Internet University"? snip 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!!!!! snip But since you cannot provide substance for your claims, allow me to provide it for mine: http://web.infoweb.ne.jp/fairtradec/new/b031107.pdf This report outlines, among other things, what happens when a global organization, such as the WTO, reacts negatively to what they perceive as "protectionist" tactics such as tariffs. So tell me again how I am "wrong" about potential retaliation for any tariffs we may place on foreign made goods. Sure. Go to college and take Macro- and Micro-Economics. And since you are so gullible, try to avoid those neocon and WTO proxy websites. So you deny that the EU was about to pass retaliatory measures to counter the steel tariffs? You refuse to acknowledge the influence of the WTO on global business practices? Are you one of those slackers who was protesting the WTO in Seattle the other year, when all that violence occurred? Facts only please. 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. 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. And yet -another- fact is that you have an extremely limited understanding of economics. snip I guess that's why Mercedes, Jags and BMW's sell so well, huh? Didn't you learn anything in our discussion about how a quality education is often preferred over a lesser degree? If you did, what part of your brain is unable to apply the underlying concept to other situations? So you posit that a Ford is on equal standing, quality wise, with a Mercedes? People will sometimes pay more for something if they perceive a greater value for it. Oh, you mean like if an employer sees a greater value in a better education? Not the same thing. It's -EXACTLY- the same thing. A Mercedes earned it's pedigree and reputation and that pedigree and name recognition is worth money alone. On the other hand, if you went to a 4 year school, over a 2 year school, unless you worse a shirt that said "I went to a 4 years college, hire me", you would have to prove your pedigree. I agree that the intrinsic value is there. But the public perception isn't necessarily there as well. First, look up the word 'pedigree'. Second, I can communicate my credentials (not my 'pedigrees') to a potential employer with my resume. Third, public perception only matters if the public is doing the hiring, such as making a choice between Bush or Kerry (both of whom had ****ty grades in college, a fact which has been ignored by the press until just just recently for whatever reason). 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. So what's the name of that tech school you claim to have attended, Dave? snip US/UK ownership and control of Iraq's oil prior to Saddam (Iraqi Oil Company, later known as Shell Oil) is well documented. Yea, so? Try Funk & Wagnall's. The fact that Saddam reclaimed Iraq's oil was not only documented by Western civilization but used as propaganda by Saddam. He even tried to reclaim oil fields that were stolen from Iraq by international charter long before Saddam took power (see Funk & Wagnall's for the history of Kuwait). So you are now attempting to justify Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990? Is that what I said? Only one month after the US invasion, Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government. Temporarily. By January 2004, a "state-owned" oil company was created by James Baker (former Secretary of State, now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil) that favoured the US oil industry. Shell Oil (as well as several other US oil companies) quickly established exclusive contracts with this new Iraqi oil company. This is an interim arrangement and only supposed to be in place until the Iraqi government becomes stable enough to take over for themselves. 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. Take some time and get yourself up to speed. And take a couple semesters of economics while you're at it. ----== 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 07 Jun 2005 21:27:02 GMT, Steveo wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: On 07 Jun 2005 11:02:58 GMT, Steveo wrote: Dave Hall wrote: BTW, how was Dayton? Nerd festival. :P That's a shame. It used to be interesting, from an electronic flotsam perspective. Some hams have a er... ah... problem with personal hygiene though...... True. It was ok but the used gear there wasn't any cheaper, or better than what is on ebay really. E-Bay will be the death of Hamfests. A shame, but an interesting part of ham culture is about to become extinct. I'll try Findlay next. Ever been there? No, I can't say that I have. I usually don't travel that far from home to attend hamfests. Dayton was the lone exception. And were it not for the fact that my company paid to send me there (And hotel for the weekend), I probably wouldn't have gone. It took me 9 hours to drive there. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:27:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:59:32 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : big snip The price of -any- product relies upon the laws of supply and demand. That's true to an extent. No, that's true for any product or service. That's why they are call the LAWS of supply and demand. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Very basic terminology from Econ 101. And one more thing: the government -loves- to tax any product that is inelastic because it doesn't affect the demand for the product. That's why alcohol, tobacco and gasoline are taxed so heavily. 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. big snip But because of this interference, there is no longer a free-market economy, and free-market economic models no longer apply. No ****. But things like tariffs are also interfering with the free market. Outsourcing, free and open trade, and elimination of protectionist tariffs support the free market. If you favor tariffs, limits on trade, and penalties for outsourcing, then you don't support a free market. Import tariffs interfere with a free -international- market, Hello McFly! We now live in an international GLOBAL market. Get used to it! 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. 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. 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. So you say, as you mix drinks for a living, Mr. Underachiever. At what school did -you- learn economics, Dave? "Internet University"? The same one that taught me engineering. The one that I'm not going to tell you about, no matter how many times you beg. 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. snip But since you cannot provide substance for your claims, allow me to provide it for mine: http://web.infoweb.ne.jp/fairtradec/new/b031107.pdf This report outlines, among other things, what happens when a global organization, such as the WTO, reacts negatively to what they perceive as "protectionist" tactics such as tariffs. So tell me again how I am "wrong" about potential retaliation for any tariffs we may place on foreign made goods. Sure. Go to college and take Macro- and Micro-Economics. And since you are so gullible, try to avoid those neocon and WTO proxy websites. So you deny that the EU was about to pass retaliatory measures to counter the steel tariffs? You refuse to acknowledge the influence of the WTO on global business practices? Are you one of those slackers who was protesting the WTO in Seattle the other year, when all that violence occurred? Facts only please. 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? 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? What do we make that they can't? (and cheaper). 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? 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. snip I guess that's why Mercedes, Jags and BMW's sell so well, huh? Didn't you learn anything in our discussion about how a quality education is often preferred over a lesser degree? If you did, what part of your brain is unable to apply the underlying concept to other situations? So you posit that a Ford is on equal standing, quality wise, with a Mercedes? People will sometimes pay more for something if they perceive a greater value for it. Oh, you mean like if an employer sees a greater value in a better education? Not the same thing. It's -EXACTLY- the same thing. No, it's not. A Mercedes earned it's pedigree and reputation and that pedigree and name recognition is worth money alone. On the other hand, if you went to a 4 year school, over a 2 year school, unless you worse a shirt that said "I went to a 4 years college, hire me", you would have to prove your pedigree. I agree that the intrinsic value is there. But the public perception isn't necessarily there as well. First, look up the word 'pedigree'. No need. My usage is consistent with the definition to the extent that a company's "lineage" as applied to Mercedes Benz, can be compared to someone's "lineage" in academic achievements. But if you prefer a different word, I can accommodate. How about "Prestige"? Or "Prominence"? Second, I can communicate my credentials (not my 'pedigrees') to a potential employer with my resume. Yes, you can. But until you do, they have no way of knowing. YOU have to sell yourself. A Mercedes Benz, on the other hand, sells by itself due to their established reputation and company pedigree. Third, public perception only matters if the public is doing the hiring, such as making a choice between Bush or Kerry (both of whom had ****ty grades in college, a fact which has been ignored by the press until just just recently for whatever reason). Yet the image, and perception by many, was that Kerry was an "intellectual", while Bush was a "country bumpkin". Yet Bush actually advanced further in college. That example outlines perfectly the effect that perception has on altering the truth. 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"...... So what's the name of that tech school you claim to have attended, Dave? N.O.Y.F. Business University. snip US/UK ownership and control of Iraq's oil prior to Saddam (Iraqi Oil Company, later known as Shell Oil) is well documented. Yea, so? Try Funk & Wagnall's. The fact that Saddam reclaimed Iraq's oil was not only documented by Western civilization but used as propaganda by Saddam. He even tried to reclaim oil fields that were stolen from Iraq by international charter long before Saddam took power (see Funk & Wagnall's for the history of Kuwait). So you are now attempting to justify Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990? Is that what I said? It's what you implied. LIke Saddam was only trying to reclaim what was rightfully his, when he invaded a sovereign country for no legitimate reason. Only one month after the US invasion, Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government. Temporarily. By January 2004, a "state-owned" oil company was created by James Baker (former Secretary of State, now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil) that favoured the US oil industry. Shell Oil (as well as several other US oil companies) quickly established exclusive contracts with this new Iraqi oil company. This is an interim arrangement and only supposed to be in place until the Iraqi government becomes stable enough to take over for themselves. 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? Dave "Sandbagger" |
Dave Hall wrote:
On 07 Jun 2005 21:27:02 GMT, Steveo wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On 07 Jun 2005 11:02:58 GMT, Steveo wrote: Dave Hall wrote: BTW, how was Dayton? Nerd festival. :P That's a shame. It used to be interesting, from an electronic flotsam perspective. Some hams have a er... ah... problem with personal hygiene though...... True. It was ok but the used gear there wasn't any cheaper, or better than what is on ebay really. E-Bay will be the death of Hamfests. A shame, but an interesting part of ham culture is about to become extinct. I believe your right. I kinda hate to see the boat anchors fade away but it's inevitable. The new wave of technology is going to leave a big part of the HF radio hobby in the dust. I'll try Findlay next. Ever been there? No, I can't say that I have. I usually don't travel that far from home to attend hamfests. Dayton was the lone exception. And were it not for the fact that my company paid to send me there (And hotel for the weekend), I probably wouldn't have gone. It took me 9 hours to drive there. Yea, that's a cruise. It takes that or a little more to haul my travel trailer to Bristol for the Nascar race in the spring. I -sure- wouldn't do it for what I saw at Dayton, more than once. |
|
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:18:59 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:27:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:59:32 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : big snip The price of -any- product relies upon the laws of supply and demand. That's true to an extent. No, that's true for any product or service. That's why they are call the LAWS of supply and demand. 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. So before you whine yet again about paying someone else's share of the tax burden, take a look at where you shop. 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. 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. 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, 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. Afterwards they pushed the gas prices up, and the oil companies not only recovered their losses but established a dominance of the market. -That's- why our cars burn gasoline, and -that's- why we are paying so much at the pump. 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. Also, alcohol comes from vegetable bio-mass, meaning the energy in alcohol comes from the sun which is both renewable and virtually inexhaustible. 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. All this could have happened within the past eighty years had it not been for unfair import trade practices in the early 1900's. But it didn't, and now -we- have to pay for the mistakes made by the government all those years ago. 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? Or do you -like- the idea that -we- are actually helping China become the next globally-dominant economic superpower? Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I learned my history, Dave. You need to go back to school. 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. Very basic terminology from Econ 101. And one more thing: the government -loves- to tax any product that is inelastic because it doesn't affect the demand for the product. That's why alcohol, tobacco and gasoline are taxed so heavily. 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. If you can't even grasp a simple concept like price elasticity then you really shouldn't be talking economics. But I keep forgetting -- you have some intrinsic need to publically humiliate yourself by demonstrating your ignorance. big snip But because of this interference, there is no longer a free-market economy, and free-market economic models no longer apply. No ****. But things like tariffs are also interfering with the free market. Outsourcing, free and open trade, and elimination of protectionist tariffs support the free market. If you favor tariffs, limits on trade, and penalties for outsourcing, then you don't support a free market. 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. The fact is that there is, and has always been, both an 'international' economy and a 'domestic' economy (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. 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 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. 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....? 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. So you say, as you mix drinks for a living, Mr. Underachiever. You're just jealous. Don't worry, you'll get over it..... when you finally find a job. At what school did -you- learn economics, Dave? "Internet University"? The same one that taught me engineering. The one that I'm not going to tell you about, no matter how many times you beg. Your claim will therefore be filed with all your other claims based on anonymous sources -- in the trash. 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. 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. What an idiot! (And BTW, that was an analogy, not a metaphor.) snip But since you cannot provide substance for your claims, allow me to provide it for mine: http://web.infoweb.ne.jp/fairtradec/new/b031107.pdf This report outlines, among other things, what happens when a global organization, such as the WTO, reacts negatively to what they perceive as "protectionist" tactics such as tariffs. So tell me again how I am "wrong" about potential retaliation for any tariffs we may place on foreign made goods. Sure. Go to college and take Macro- and Micro-Economics. And since you are so gullible, try to avoid those neocon and WTO proxy websites. So you deny that the EU was about to pass retaliatory measures to counter the steel tariffs? You refuse to acknowledge the influence of the WTO on global business practices? Are you one of those slackers who was protesting the WTO in Seattle the other year, when all that violence occurred? Facts only please. 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. 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. What do we make that they can't? (and cheaper). Not 'cheaper', Dave -- just economically competitive. 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. 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. snip I guess that's why Mercedes, Jags and BMW's sell so well, huh? Didn't you learn anything in our discussion about how a quality education is often preferred over a lesser degree? If you did, what part of your brain is unable to apply the underlying concept to other situations? So you posit that a Ford is on equal standing, quality wise, with a Mercedes? People will sometimes pay more for something if they perceive a greater value for it. Oh, you mean like if an employer sees a greater value in a better education? Not the same thing. It's -EXACTLY- the same thing. No, it's not. A Mercedes earned it's pedigree and reputation and that pedigree and name recognition is worth money alone. On the other hand, if you went to a 4 year school, over a 2 year school, unless you worse a shirt that said "I went to a 4 years college, hire me", you would have to prove your pedigree. I agree that the intrinsic value is there. But the public perception isn't necessarily there as well. First, look up the word 'pedigree'. No need. Yet you did at my prompting. My usage is consistent with the definition to the extent that a company's "lineage" as applied to Mercedes Benz, can be compared to someone's "lineage" in academic achievements. LOL! Spin away, Dave! But if you prefer a different word, I can accommodate. How about "Prestige"? Or "Prominence"? Let's see if either of those words work: "....unless you worse a shirt that said "I went to a 4 years college, hire me", you would have to prove your prestige." "....unless you worse a shirt that said "I went to a 4 years college, hire me", you would have to prove your prominence." Naw, they just don't sound right. Try again, Dave. Even better, try using the right word the first time. Second, I can communicate my credentials (not my 'pedigrees') to a potential employer with my resume. Yes, you can. Nuff said. But until you do, they have no way of knowing. YOU have to sell yourself. A Mercedes Benz, on the other hand, sells by itself due to their established reputation and company pedigree. Third, public perception only matters if the public is doing the hiring, such as making a choice between Bush or Kerry (both of whom had ****ty grades in college, a fact which has been ignored by the press until just just recently for whatever reason). Yet the image, and perception by many, was that Kerry was an "intellectual", while Bush was a "country bumpkin". Yet Bush actually advanced further in college. That example outlines perfectly the effect that perception has on altering the truth. 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!!! 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? You're about the same age as me, but you still haven't learned that honesty is more credible than self-aggrandizing lies? That's why I have credibility and you don't -- 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. snip US/UK ownership and control of Iraq's oil prior to Saddam (Iraqi Oil Company, later known as Shell Oil) is well documented. Yea, so? Try Funk & Wagnall's. The fact that Saddam reclaimed Iraq's oil was not only documented by Western civilization but used as propaganda by Saddam. He even tried to reclaim oil fields that were stolen from Iraq by international charter long before Saddam took power (see Funk & Wagnall's for the history of Kuwait). So you are now attempting to justify Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990? Is that what I said? It's what you implied. LIke Saddam was only trying to reclaim what was rightfully his, when he invaded a sovereign country for no legitimate reason. I implied nothing. What I stated was the reason Iraq invaded Kuwait. I referenced Funk & Wagnalls, but I'm sure even the internet has a verbose history of the origins of country. So what's the excuse for your ignorance -this- time? Only one month after the US invasion, Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government. Temporarily. By January 2004, a "state-owned" oil company was created by James Baker (former Secretary of State, now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil) that favoured the US oil industry. Shell Oil (as well as several other US oil companies) quickly established exclusive contracts with this new Iraqi oil company. This is an interim arrangement and only supposed to be in place until the Iraqi government becomes stable enough to take over for themselves. 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? ----== 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 09 Jun 2005 20:58:12 GMT, Steveo wrote:
BTW, how was Dayton? Nerd festival. :P That's a shame. It used to be interesting, from an electronic flotsam perspective. Some hams have a er... ah... problem with personal hygiene though...... True. It was ok but the used gear there wasn't any cheaper, or better than what is on ebay really. E-Bay will be the death of Hamfests. A shame, but an interesting part of ham culture is about to become extinct. I believe your right. I kinda hate to see the boat anchors fade away but it's inevitable. The new wave of technology is going to leave a big part of the HF radio hobby in the dust. I'm at an age now where I'm fighting the nostalgia of old rigs and technology, with trying to keep current with new technology. Ham radio used to be at the forefront of technology. Now it's lucky if it can just keep up. But my nostalgic side thinks that's just fine. I still get a warm fuzzy just sitting next to an old tube rig on a cool morning tuning through when the band is just waking up. I doubt if digital modes will ever replicate that feeling for someone in my generation or older. But for someone in their 20's who's never known the old stuff, now is the time to blaze those digital trails. I'll try Findlay next. Ever been there? No, I can't say that I have. I usually don't travel that far from home to attend hamfests. Dayton was the lone exception. And were it not for the fact that my company paid to send me there (And hotel for the weekend), I probably wouldn't have gone. It took me 9 hours to drive there. Yea, that's a cruise. It takes that or a little more to haul my travel trailer to Bristol for the Nascar race in the spring. I -sure- wouldn't do it for what I saw at Dayton, more than once. 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" |
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 10:54:47 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) E-Bay will be the death of Hamfests. FEEbay may play a part, but they are losing business more and more each day to the now free of fees Yahoo Auctions,,,,a much better auction and they don't give a damn about amps. In fact, amps are one again becoming very popular on cb. It feels like 2000 all over again. I'm sure both will play a part in the evolution of ham radio to its inevitable conclusion. A shame, but an interesting part of ham culture is about to become extinct. From what is written among these pages, Dayton hasn't been interesting, productive, or juicy, er...I mean satisfying for years. That's pretty much the impression I take away from what I've read as well. There is no shame when cheap sobs who want more money for electronic garbage and cell phones than the junk is worth are forced to compete with more widespread and saner prices. It never fails to amaze me the audacity that some hams have when trying to sell something. Some people clearly have no concept of the term "depreciation". I saw a guy once trying to sell a 25 year old crystal controlled 2 meter rig for $20 less than what it sold for new. It was not a collectors item either. But he felt that since he was the original owner, it was in good condition, and he still had the original box for it, that he could get that price. I was not surprised to see, at the end of the day, that the radio was still on his table. Dave "Sandbagger" |
From: (Steveo)
wrote: E-Bay will be the death of Hamfests. FEEbay may play a part, but they are losing business more and more each day to the now free of fees Yahoo Auctions =A0=A0 Really? I seem to find ten times more stuff on ebay. Oh yea, no doubt about it, Ebay is still king of the hill, but that may change with yahoo dropping all their fees. I've noticed dual auctions running on each at the same time for the same product. I'm sure you also probably noticed a surge in Ebay auctions that do not complete. A very convenient way out for sellers on Ebay lately has simply been a decision to end their auction early, Ebay requiring no explanation or reason from the seller. |
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 10:54:47 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) E-Bay will be the death of Hamfests. FEEbay may play a part, but they are losing business more and more each day to the now free of fees Yahoo Auctions,,,,a much better auction and they don't give a damn about amps. In fact, amps are once again becoming very popular on cb. It feels like 2000 all over again. I'm sure both will play a part in the evolution of ham radio to its inevitable conclusion. =A0=A0 A shame, but an interesting part of ham culture is about to become extinct. From what is written among these pages, Dayton hasn't been interesting for years. That's pretty much the impression I take away from what I've read as well. There is no shame when cheap sobs who want more money for electronic garbage and cell phones than the junk is worth are forced to compete with more widespread and saner prices. It never fails to amaze me the audacity that some hams have when trying to sell something. Some people clearly have no concept of the term "depreciation". I saw a guy once trying to sell a 25 year old crystal controlled 2 meter rig for $20 less than what it sold for new. It was not a collectors item either. But he felt that since he was the original owner, it was in good condition, and he still had the original box for it, that he could get that price. I was not surprised to see, at the end of the day, that the radio was still on his table. Dave "Sandbagger" Ah yea, the emotional value. Heck, its been years since AES closed their showroom here in the bay area. Since they closed their shop here, the number of local active hammies has steadily declined. |
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 |
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:19:16 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Ah yea, the emotional value. Heck, its been years since AES closed their showroom here in the bay area. Since they closed their shop here, the number of local active hammies has steadily declined. You wouldn't know it from the sheer number of Florida hams who I can work like shooting fish in a barrel when 6 meters opens up. It almost seems like most of the 6 meter operators are in Florida. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home/ptd.net/~n3cvj |
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. I'll feel the same way when hamfests die as well. It's a part of a culture that was fun while it was here, and will be sorely missed. Just like those drive-in's in the 60's where they brought your tray of food out to you and hung it on the car window.... Dave "Sandbagger" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com