"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D.
Flint"
writes:

As I recall it, wage and price controls caused some shortages because
certain
costs could not be controlled. For example, the wellhead price of natural
gas
was regulated but the cost of drilling wasn't, so a lot of folks either
stopped
drilling altogether, or, when they were drilling for oil but hit only gas,
they'd cap the well and take the loss in one lump rather than put the well
into
production and lose money on every cubic foot of gas produced.

Exactly, people won't produce things they can't make a profit on. Thus it
results in shortages and job losses leading to reduced buying power leading
to layoffs in other industries and so on.

[snip]
It's actually even more complex than that. Operating expenses are only one
metric - there's also return on investment, market volatility, stock
prices,
regulatory controls, and a bunch of other factors.

For example, suppose a business with a total investment of $1 million has
$10
million in operating expenses and $100,000 in profits. Profit is 1% of
operating expenses but 10% of investment - is this company on rocky ground
or
not? If the operating expenses are fairly fixed, even a small drop in
sales
will put the company in the red. But if the operating expenses rise and
fall in
sync with sales, the company may be in a very solid position, profit wise.

There are all sorts of other examples. Some industries are so cyclic that
they
*need* high profits in good times to carry them through losses in bad
times.


I agree 100% but was just trying to keep it simple. It also illustrates
that it it too complex to try to regulate as we've discussed below.

"Law of Unexpected Consequences"

Look at the auto industry. Fuel prices were kept artificially low until
the
1973 embargo, when they became artificially high, and the fuel itself
became
scarce.

Because the market had become used to a semingly inexhaustible supply of
cheap
fuel, the US auto industry did not develop fuel-efficient cars, and
transportation alternatives like transit died off (or were actively killed
to
get rid of the competition to the private auto). This shortsightedness set
the
stage for massive inroads in the US market by foreign carmakers who *had*
developed fuel-efficient cars.


Yup it sure did. I certainly remember when it seemed the roadways were
dominated by foreign cars.

In addition, you have left out the most workable option. That is to work
toward a world economy that enjoys a comparable standard to ours. Once
that
occurs, industry will find it more economical to produce more locally to
trim shipping costs. Once it becomes equally costly to make a car in
Japan
as in the US for example, then the lower shipping cost means it's better
to
serve the US market with cars made in the US.

In the case of cars, this has already happened in some cases. Many
Japanese
companies (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, to name just a few) make cars in the USA
because it's cheaper!

VW started that trend way back in the '70s by buying the Westmoreland, PA
facility from Chrysler, and building Rabbits, Golfs and Jettas here
instead of
Germany. VW later sold that plant to Sony, who uses it to make CRTs
(because
it's cheaper to make them here!)

The main drawback is the fact
that it will take a very long time before the world standard of living
matches ours.

So what do we do until then?

73 de Jim, N2EY

As people have always done:
1) Some will whine and barely get by.
2) Some will simply make the best of what they have and do a bit better
3) Others will forge ahead and strive for their own personal best
development and productivity and will be reasonably comfortable.
4) Yet others will create an opportunity and become the next Bill Gates.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Exactly, people won't produce things they can't make a profit on.

More likely they simply can't produce those things.

Thus it
results in shortages and job losses leading to reduced buying power leading
to layoffs in other industries and so on.

Exactly.

Even more recently, look at the mess that the electric power industry got into
in parts of California some time back because of botched "deregulation".

[snip]
It's actually even more complex than that. Operating expenses are only one
metric - there's also return on investment, market volatility, stock
prices, regulatory controls, and a bunch of other factors.

For example, suppose a business with a total investment of $1 million has
$10
million in operating expenses and $100,000 in profits. Profit is 1% of
operating expenses but 10% of investment - is this company on rocky ground
or
not? If the operating expenses are fairly fixed, even a small drop in
sales
will put the company in the red. But if the operating expenses rise and
fall in
sync with sales, the company may be in a very solid position, profit wise.

There are all sorts of other examples. Some industries are so cyclic that
they
*need* high profits in good times to carry them through losses in bad
times.

I agree 100% but was just trying to keep it simple. It also illustrates
that it it too complex to try to regulate as we've discussed below.

There *is* a need for regulation of industry - we just have to be very careful
as to how that regulation is done. For example, I don't think US companies
should have to compete head-to-head with foreign companies whose managements
don't have to worry about environmental rules, safety rules, child labor laws,
etc.

"Law of Unexpected Consequences"

Look at the auto industry. Fuel prices were kept artificially low until
the
1973 embargo, when they became artificially high, and the fuel itself
became scarce.

Because the market had become used to a semingly inexhaustible supply of
cheap
fuel, the US auto industry did not develop fuel-efficient cars, and
transportation alternatives like transit died off (or were actively killed
to
get rid of the competition to the private auto). This shortsightedness set
the
stage for massive inroads in the US market by foreign carmakers who *had*
developed fuel-efficient cars.

Yup it sure did. I certainly remember when it seemed the roadways were
dominated by foreign cars.

In some ways they still are. Much of what we consider "American" cars are not
100% "Made in USA". In fact, many "foreign" cars have higher domestic
content...

In the past quarter century, my immediate family motor pool has included 2
Fords, 1 Saturn, 3 VWs, and 2 Hondas. All "Made in the USA".

In addition, you have left out the most workable option. That is to work
toward a world economy that enjoys a comparable standard to ours. Once
that
occurs, industry will find it more economical to produce more locally to
trim shipping costs. Once it becomes equally costly to make a car in
Japan
as in the US for example, then the lower shipping cost means it's better
to serve the US market with cars made in the US.

In the case of cars, this has already happened in some cases. Many
Japanese
companies (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, to name just a few) make cars in the
USA because it's cheaper!

VW started that trend way back in the '70s by buying the Westmoreland, PA
facility from Chrysler, and building Rabbits, Golfs and Jettas here
instead of
Germany. VW later sold that plant to Sony, who uses it to make CRTs
(because
it's cheaper to make them here!)

The main drawback is the fact
that it will take a very long time before the world standard of living
matches ours.

So what do we do until then?

73 de Jim, N2EY

As people have always done:
1) Some will whine and barely get by.
2) Some will simply make the best of what they have and do a bit better
3) Others will forge ahead and strive for their own personal best
development and productivity and will be reasonably comfortable.
4) Yet others will create an opportunity and become the next Bill Gates.

I meant as a society.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


What does any of this have to do with BPL?????

Carl, this isn't a newsgroup, it's a CHAT ROOM for the regulars
and their buddies.


Nope, not even the use of CAPITAL LETTERS makes this a chat room. It is
still a newsgroup.


All can talk on anydamnthingtheywant
because they got licensed as amateurs.


All can discuss any topic because it isn't outlawed. As you've been
quick to point out, this is an unmoderated group. You've frequently
gone quite far afield in your postings. We'll chalk this up as another
"Do as I say and not as I do" comment.


One can only talk
about actual amateur radio policy issues someplace else... :-)


What's it to you? You aren't ivolved in amateur radio.

Especially since the Carl's real intention behind his comment was based
(I think) on my being some minor irritant to him, rather than a desire
to keep the newsgroup pure and On Topic.

I think you have a complete grasp of the situation. Carl had nothing to
say about BPL nor did Len.

Dave K8MN

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
There *is* a need for regulation of industry - we just have to be very
careful
as to how that regulation is done. For example, I don't think US companies
should have to compete head-to-head with foreign companies whose
managements
don't have to worry about environmental rules, safety rules, child labor
laws,
etc.

And of course we need basic regulations such as preventing one company from
selling temporarily at a loss to drive another company out of business and
so on. However what I meant was that we do not know enough to manipulate
the economy to create prosperity. I.e. The most productive approach is going
to be the free market economy that has mechanisms in place to prevent
unethical business practices (as described in my first sentence) and to
prevent the drifting towards monopolies so that there are competing
companies.

The items in the last sentence of your paragraph will change as these
foreign countries become more prosperous. The US and European countries did
not enact such laws themselves until we were our economies were strong
enough to allow us to do so. This is part of what I was talking about when
I said problem of foreign competition will eventally be solved when the
foreign companies reach our level of prosperity. Of course in the meantime
it does make it difficult for us. But who ever promised life would be easy?

[snip] the most workable option. That is to work
toward a world economy that enjoys a comparable standard to ours.
Once
that
occurs, industry will find it more economical to produce more locally
to
trim shipping costs. Once it becomes equally costly to make a car in
Japan
as in the US for example, then the lower shipping cost means it's
better
to serve the US market with cars made in the US.

In the case of cars, this has already happened in some cases. Many
Japanese
companies (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, to name just a few) make cars in the
USA because it's cheaper!

VW started that trend way back in the '70s by buying the Westmoreland,
PA
facility from Chrysler, and building Rabbits, Golfs and Jettas here
instead of
Germany. VW later sold that plant to Sony, who uses it to make CRTs
(because
it's cheaper to make them here!)

The main drawback is the fact
that it will take a very long time before the world standard of living
matches ours.

So what do we do until then?

73 de Jim, N2EY

As people have always done:
1) Some will whine and barely get by.
2) Some will simply make the best of what they have and do a bit better
3) Others will forge ahead and strive for their own personal best
development and productivity and will be reasonably comfortable.
4) Yet others will create an opportunity and become the next Bill Gates.

I meant as a society.

Well it's not going to work to try to manipulate the economy and market
place. So as a society, we have patience and help these other countries to
become as prosperous as we are. And we deal individually with the hardships
as we have always done in the ups and downs of life.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "Dee D.

Flint"

writes:


"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or

minimum

wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour.

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living"

wage.

It wasn't? I'd be interested in a reference on that.

I think what we're really seeing is inflation outpacing the minimum wage.

Fun fact: In 1976 I started a job as a degreed engineer at the princely

sum of

about $12,000/yr - about $6 an hour. About minimum wage today, but back

then

the prices of most things (particularly housing and transportation) was so

much

lower that it was a lot of money - to me, anyway.

73 de Jim, N2EY


And at that time minimum wage was about $1.50 per hour.


Actually a bit more, as I recall. But in any event we're talking $3000/yr to
$4000/yr, max..

In the summer of 1972, I got my first job after high school. It paid
$2.40 per hour. Minimum at that time was $2.20.

It wasn't a living
wage then either. Entry level jobs have never provided the income to
support a family.


Agreed - nor were they meant to. But it *was* possible for a person to live on
them - probably more so than today.

I lived on that $2.40 per hour. Not well, but okay.


Anyone that I have ever known in my lifetime (52 years)
that made minimum wage either lived with their parents or other relatives, a
group of roommates, or had a working spouse even back when I was a child.


Pretty much the same here.

Folks, conservative ot liberal, there is a whole other world out there!
I know of a number of families that had both parents working at minimum
or close to it.

No adult male that I knew stayed in a minimum wage job any longer than it
took to find something else because they could not pay groc, rent, and
transportation on that. It has never been high enough to do so.


'adult male'....ahem.....

The age of the "adult male" as the breadwinner is long gone. Both
husband and wife now pretty much *need* to work. If a family is in the
situation where only one needs to work, then that's great. But let's
hope they don't gloat about it.

Wages versus costs is all relative. You have to look at how many hours it
takes to buy something.


Exactly! And you also have to take into account things like creeping taxation
(even if the laws don't change, inflation causes people to pay more of their
income in taxes) and increases in the number of 'necessities'.

Taxes are a big part of the game, too. At one time the income tax rules were
such that people on the bottom end who knew the rules could pay very little in
taxes. I remember when:

- *all* interest paid (not just home mortgage interest) was deductible.
- *all* documented sales tax and *most* documented medical costs were
deductible
- the various personal and dependent deductions were larger *in infaltion
adjusted dollars*


The majority of items but not all take fewer hours
of work to purchase than they did in 1976.


In some cases, yes, in others, no.

As I recall reading a while back, in 1950, it took 14 percent of an
average workers income to put a roof over "his head". That may have
changed a little bit! 8^)

And did you know they are doing seven year loans on cars? If all was
equal, wages and prices, we would still be doing 2 and 3 year loans on them.

There are two of the major outlays for the typical family. Add to that
education costs, which have outpaced inflation by in some cases 400
percent (in my area, we had an around 12 percent increase one year
recently) and you have a bit different picture!


The cost of electronics is down
in terms of hours to buy.


True to a point - but on the other end of the scale, those electronics are
often non-repairable, and have limited useful lives, so that they must be
replaced more often.

It breaks, and you buy a new one. Break even at best.

It it actually easier to restore ham gear that is 30-40-50 years old than much
of the newer stuff, because parts for much of the newer stuff are simply
unobtainable except from junker units. The displays in the popular TS-440S is
one example - they are no longer made, and yet they are often one of the first
major parts to fail, so your chances of lifting one from a junker are slim.


The cost of houses is about the same in terms of
hours.

disagree

A lot of that depends on the interest rate and taxes. Interest rates in the
'70s were double-digit, approaching 17% in some markets at times - for home
mortgages! But since all that interest was deductible, the *effective* interest
rate was less, depending on your tax bracket.

Escalating home prices makes it harder to get started, though, because the size
of the down payment keeps growing. And since many of the fees involved with
buying and selling are a percentage of the price, the amount of cash a
first-timer needs gets really high.

Compare this to 40-50 years ago, when interest rates, taxes and down payments
were low.

agree. I know some people who are paying over 50 percent of theie take
home pay in mortgage payment. Amazingly enough, their banks allowed them
to get into that situation.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Product quality is dropping (plastics),

In some areas, yes. But people still buy the products!


People don't have any choice. As an example, I went shopping for a fan
recently (to replace the last one that quit). I couldn't find a well-built,
metal, fan anywhere in the area. I ended up with a plastic fan that will
fall apart in a month or two just like the last ones. I'm not saving any
money because I have to keep buying this plastic garbage every few weeks.


How much corporate profit is excessive? If a company
is worth $1 billion, and their profit is $100 million, that's
a 10% return on investment. Is that excessive? Who
decides?


Are you not aware of our system of government, Jim? You know, the people
we vote for to make exactly these types of decisions.


But without the details it's a moot point. Suppose a
company has a string of bad years and then a good
year - should their profits in the good year be
confiscated and a blind eye turned towards the bad
years?


It's not my job to come up with all the details, Jim. I've already said I
don't have all the answers. But why does that make an idea a moot point.


Price controls were tried in the late '60s and early '70s
to "Whip Infaltion Now". Didn't work in the long term.


I don't remember that.


Because the *market* (people who make the buying
decisions) go to the Wal Mart instead of the local stores.
That's where the real problem lies - people who do not
think about the long-term economic results of their actions.


Why should they? They're going to Wal-Mart to buy a power tool or
whatever, not ponder the global economic implications of that purchase.


Do you know this for a fact? Car price increases also
reflect the enormous investment in engineering and tooling
to build cars using the latest technology. Remember when
most cars fell apart before reaching 10 years or 100,000
miles?


Do I know putting a regulatory cap on credit in the car market will drive
down auto prices? Absolutely. If people have to pay more cash up front, with
less financed by credit, very few would be able to afford the prices of
today's automobiles. Companies will be forced to cut prices if they want to
continue selling automobiles and Americans will have more money in their
pockets to spend elsewhere (benefiting a wider segment of the overall
economy).

And, no, I don't remember when most cars fell apart before reaching 10
years or 100,000 miles. I've owned plenty of older cars in my life
(certainly throughout the 60's and 70's) and I don't think any of them were
less then 10 years old or had less than 100,000 miles on them. And all of
them were built much better than today's models. My $35k SUV today is filled
with plastic that is already starting to decay with only 40,000 miles on the
vehicle. The Jeep I owned in 1972 had almost 200,000 miles on it with all
original body parts (a little dented, but all original).


As long as people are willing to pay the prices, the markets
are driven that way. Supply and demand.


But, as always, companies control the supply. The difference is that
today's monopolistic companies are not dependant on the daily sales of a
single product, so are able to manipulate supply in an effort to raise
prices. Since these companies often control whole market segments, consumer
are left with only two choices - not purchase the goods they want or pay the
higher prices. In today's economy, the concept of supply and demand seems
rather quaint, Jim.


What about people trying to get started as homeowners?
Raising the price of credit makes it impossible for them to
buy a first house.


I said nothing about raising the price of credit. I was referring to
credit caps - a cap on the percentage of the total purchase price that could
be financed or a cap on the percentage of a person's income that could be
used to establish the monthly credit payments. Both were common in the
fifties, sixties, and early seventies, and the economy and consumers did
just fine.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

You know Nixon tried wage and price controls and we
started developing shortages. Other countries in the
world have tried it too and also failed. Every where that
has been tried, the standard of living dropped, goods and
services became hard to get and unemployment rose. So
why try what has already been proven to fail.


Wage and price controls are commonplace in Europe and the standard of
living did not drop, goods and services did not became hard to get, and
unemployment did not rise.


Please show that profits are obscene. Don't quote dollars,
quote percentage of operating expenses. (snip)


I'm not going to quote anything, Dee. I gave my personal opinion. While
you're certainly free to agree or disagree with that, there is no
requirement whatsoever to prove an opinion. If, on the other hand, you think
my opinion is that important, you're certainly free to prove it's wrong.


In addition, you have left out the most workable option. That
is to work toward a world economy that enjoys a comparable
standard to ours. (snip)


You honestly think that is a workable option? It will take many decades,
perhaps longer, to accomplish that. What happens to everyone else in the
meantime?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

In the case of cars, this has already happened in some cases.
Many Japanese companies (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, to name
just a few) make cars in the USA because it's cheaper!

VW started that trend way back in the '70s by buying the
Westmoreland, PA facility from Chrysler, and building Rabbits,
Golfs and Jettas here instead of Germany. VW later sold that
plant to Sony, who uses it to make CRTs (because it's cheaper
to make them here!)


Wasn't that much more the result of our own import tariffs, significantly
increased in the 80's to "protect" companies like Chrysler from foreign
competition?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

In the case of cars, this has already happened in some cases.
Many Japanese companies (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, to name
just a few) make cars in the USA because it's cheaper!

VW started that trend way back in the '70s by buying the
Westmoreland, PA facility from Chrysler, and building Rabbits,
Golfs and Jettas here instead of Germany. VW later sold that
plant to Sony, who uses it to make CRTs (because it's cheaper
to make them here!)


Wasn't that much more the result of our own import tariffs,
significantly
increased in the 80's to "protect" companies like Chrysler from foreign
competition?


Nope. It was a result of two things. One, the US automakers buckled down
and reduced their production costs to be competitive. Secondly in the case
of Japanese automobiles, the Japanese government quit subsidizing car
production when their automakers succeeded in obtaining a significant
percentage of the US market (their government then put the money into
subsidizing other industries they wanted to get off the ground). Once that
happened the prices of Japanese cars rose. The net result was that US and
Japanese automakers were now on a "level playing field" and the customers
could once again pick a car from a US auto company without a major
difference in cost.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote:

In some ways they still are. Much of what we
consider "American" cars are not 100% "Made
in USA". In fact, many "foreign" cars have higher
domestic content...

In the past quarter century, my immediate family
motor pool has included 2 Fords, 1 Saturn, 3 VWs,
and 2 Hondas. All "Made in the USA".


When shopping for a car, how can you tell which are made in the USA? My
wife's Plymouth was made in Mexico and my Ford was made in Canada. I didn't
find that out until the vehicles were actually delivered. The purchase of
these "American" cars certainly didn't help US automobile workers much.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/