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.



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!

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. 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. 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.


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.


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.

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.

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.


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. 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?

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.

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.

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.


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?



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. 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.




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.

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?

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.



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.



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?

Getting the picture yet?

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

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 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 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 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"

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

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

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

james

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

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

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

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


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

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


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







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

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

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

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

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


Thank you for explaining it in a far more comprehensive way than I
did.

Tariff are a cause, not an effect.

Dave
"Sandbagger"