"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote:

So.... basically, one way or another people have to
pay for it, be it in higher service/product costs or
paying in taxes for a government program.


Let me start by saying I don't have all the answers either, Ryan. However,
it is fairly easy to see where some of the biggest problems are. The most
obvious is corporate profits today. Product quality is dropping (plastics),
wages are relatively stagnated, product prices certainly haven't dropped
much, but corporate profits have went through the roof. Perhaps a mechanism
to reel in or put a cap on corporate profits is the answer. How to do that
is the ten thousand dollar question (or, in this case, trillion dollar
question). I'm somewhat radical, so I prefer the outright purge method - a
cap on product price increases for several years and an immediate increase
in overall wages (with caps on immigration or other negative factors
effecting workers). This will drive some marginal companies out of business
(the purge) and will slow down the economy sharply. But, over a several year
period, more streamlined companies will eventually replace those put out of
business and the economy will recover. At that point, the cap on product
prices can be reduced, letting competition once again drive the market.

The second most obvious is the concentration of marketplaces. So, if the
above isn't acceptable, perhaps this is the place to look. What I'm talking
about here is larger corporations gobbling up whole market segments, driving
smaller companies out of business. Lets take an example. Wal-Mart moves into
a town offering a wide range of products. Of course, the new store doesn't
offer a wide selection in any department, but it does carry the basics in
each department - just enough to take away what local businesses call their
bread-and-butter products (the products stores depend on to pay employees,
rent, and so on). As that happens, local stores are forced to depend on the
sale of high end products where sales are far less predictable. The
inevitable result is that many smaller stores simply collapse. And this
isn't just happening in the retail industry. It is happening in many
industries (publishing, news, entertainment, manufacturing, transportation,
and so on).

The next most obvious is credit. In many markets, high prices are
supported only by massive credit activity. For example, the automobile
market. Prices have climbed sharply mainly because credit is much easier to
get, in much higher amounts, than just a few decades ago. Put a regulatory
cap on credit in this market and prices have to drop if companies want to
sell cars. Of course, the same is true for other markets (home construction,
consumer goods, and so on). The biggest danger to this solution is the
tendency for companies to pass on any initial losses to consumers (lower
quality products) and their own employees. The first will correct itself
over time, but the second requires additional labor protections (wage
increases, a cap on immigration, and efforts to prevent companies from
moving overseas).

Like I said, I certainly don't have all the answers. Even some of the
problems are elusive. However, it is clear that even minor regulatory
modifications, not massive government programs, can have a dramatic impact.
The idea offered in the first paragraph also has the advantage of keeping
product prices down for consumers. The idea in the second paragraph requires
more effort, but offers greater returns over a longer period of time. The
idea in the third paragraph offers the most benefits, but will have the most
negative impact on consumers in the short term. For a truly robust economy,
perhaps parts of all three should be considered.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote:

So.... basically, one way or another people have to
pay for it, be it in higher service/product costs or
paying in taxes for a government program.

Let me start by saying I don't have all the answers either, Ryan. However,
it is fairly easy to see where some of the biggest problems are. The most
obvious is corporate profits today.

Hold on a sec, Dwight. "Corporate profits" are the basis of any capitalist
system. Without 'em, our economy collapses.

Product quality is dropping (plastics),

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

wages are relatively stagnated, product prices certainly haven't dropped
much, but corporate profits have went through the roof.

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?

Perhaps a mechanism
to reel in or put a cap on corporate profits is the answer. How to do that
is the ten thousand dollar question (or, in this case, trillion dollar
question).

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?

I'm somewhat radical, so I prefer the outright purge method - a
cap on product price increases for several years and an immediate increase
in overall wages (with caps on immigration or other negative factors
effecting workers).

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

This will drive some marginal companies out of business
(the purge) and will slow down the economy sharply.

At the very least. And the political and economic backlash will be
overwhelming.

But, over a several year
period, more streamlined companies will eventually replace those put out of
business and the economy will recover. At that point, the cap on product
prices can be reduced, letting competition once again drive the market.

Except that it may not be the most "streamlined" companies who survive.

The second most obvious is the concentration of marketplaces. So, if the
above isn't acceptable, perhaps this is the place to look. What I'm talking
about here is larger corporations gobbling up whole market segments, driving
smaller companies out of business. Lets take an example. Wal-Mart moves into
a town offering a wide range of products. Of course, the new store doesn't
offer a wide selection in any department, but it does carry the basics in
each department - just enough to take away what local businesses call their
bread-and-butter products (the products stores depend on to pay employees,
rent, and so on). As that happens, local stores are forced to depend on the
sale of high end products where sales are far less predictable. The
inevitable result is that many smaller stores simply collapse. And this
isn't just happening in the retail industry. It is happening in many
industries (publishing, news, entertainment, manufacturing, transportation,
and so on).

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.

The next most obvious is credit. In many markets, high prices are
supported only by massive credit activity. For example, the automobile
market. Prices have climbed sharply mainly because credit is much easier to
get, in much higher amounts, than just a few decades ago. Put a regulatory
cap on credit in this market and prices have to drop if companies want to
sell cars.

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?

Of course, the same is true for other markets (home construction,
consumer goods, and so on).

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

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

Some months back I refinanced the mortgage on this place. Took more than 5
years off the ultimate payback date *and* reduced my monthly payment by a few
$$. Was that a good thing or a bad thing for me to do?

The biggest danger to this solution is the
tendency for companies to pass on any initial losses to consumers (lower
quality products) and their own employees. The first will correct itself
over time, but the second requires additional labor protections (wage
increases, a cap on immigration, and efforts to prevent companies from
moving overseas).

Import duties.

Like I said, I certainly don't have all the answers. Even some of the
problems are elusive. However, it is clear that even minor regulatory
modifications, not massive government programs, can have a dramatic impact.
The idea offered in the first paragraph also has the advantage of keeping
product prices down for consumers. The idea in the second paragraph requires
more effort, but offers greater returns over a longer period of time. The
idea in the third paragraph offers the most benefits, but will have the most
negative impact on consumers in the short term. For a truly robust economy,
perhaps parts of all three should be considered.

But you also have to consider that the companies will find ways around such
limitations. If the govt. is going to seize my "excess" profits, I simply won't
have any - I'll set up deferred-compensation programs for myself and other
bigwigs, buy down debt and buy back stock, do massive capital programs that
*reduce* employment, invest in things to carry my company over the lean years
to come, etc.

The big changes have to come from ordinary folks becoming educated and deciding
how to spend their money. It's "voting with your wallet" and it's done every
day.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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/

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


Try JC Whitney. That's at least one of many links that came up when I did
an Altavista Search for metal fan. There's loads of other choices. $24.99.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Try JC Whitney. That's at least one of many links that
came up when I did an Altavista Search for metal fan.
There's loads of other choices. $24.99.


To save time, I decided to consolidate my responses. Therefore, see my
response to Jim for more about this, Kim.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Try JC Whitney. That's at least one of many links that
came up when I did an Altavista Search for metal fan.
There's loads of other choices. $24.99.


To save time, I decided to consolidate my responses. Therefore, see my
response to Jim for more about this, Kim.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



Yeah...I did. The post from you, above, makes more sense than that one did.

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"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.

As Kim points out, look elsewhere. The 'net gives us a powerful tool
to find other sources. The problem is that you may have to wait for
the item, and pay more for it (delivery vs. sales tax).

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 they do not always make them wisely.

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.

The devil is in the details. A good idea can be ruined by bad details.

But why does that make an idea a moot point.

Because whether such ideas work or not is largely dependent on those
details.


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.

I do. First Nixon, then Ford. Basically came down to denying reality.

The USA economy had been built since at least the end of WW2 on
several concepts:

- lack of foreign competition
- cheap, abundant oil for energy
- high investment of tax dollars in certain technologies (highways and
air transport, military hardware, nukes) and low/nonexistent
investment in other, competing technology (railroads/transit/ships,
domestic electronics, energy conservation and alternative sources).
- unquestioned belief in unlimited growth and consumption, as well as
disposability of almost anything

When the slack ran in, US industry was poorly prepared. Look at the
oil situation alone - gasoline prices had been stable at less than 25
cents/gallon for decades until 1973. Then they doubled overnight, and
5-6 years later doubled again. So did all other petroleum fuel
products. Those increases dominoed through US industry.

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?

Because it's their responsibility. Part of a free market economy is
being a *customer*, not a *consumer*.

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

Then they should not complain when the hardware store and the American
power tool plants shut down, quality degrades, unemployment rises,
etc.

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 the auto companies will be in trouble because their sales are off.

However, I agree with your concept, now that I understand what you
meant. See below.

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).

Those aren't cars - they're trucks.

By "cars" I mean ordinary American passenger cars. And until they had
to deal with foreign competition, they would not last as long as they
do today.

However, note that where and how a car is used makes a big difference.
Those of us in snowy, seaside and humid climates will have far more
trouble with rust than those in arid climes. A car driven 100,000
miles in stop-and-go city traffic has a lot more stresses on it than a
car driven 250,000 miles on the highway. In fact, I've often thought
cars should have running time meters and startup counters in addition
to odometers. Because miles and years don't begin to tell the whole
story.

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.

There are *always* other sources. That's why I built an Elecraft
rather than buy Ikensu.

In today's economy, the concept of supply and demand seems
rather quaint, Jim.

Are you saying Adam Smith is obsolete? I disagree.

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.

Now *that* makes sense - and I agree! Would prevent a lot of
bankruptcies.

Both were common in the
fifties, sixties, and early seventies, and the economy and consumers did
just fine.

Maybe in the 50s and 60s, but not in the '70s! But the 70s problems
were definitely not caused by excessive borrowing by ordinary people.

But it all comes down to a level of personal responsibility,
education, and being a customer, not a consumer.

And accepting that there *are* limits to growth, and what we can
afford. People are not necessarily happier with, say, a bigger house,
if they have to go up to their necks in hock to buy it and take care
of it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

Then they should not complain when the hardware store and the American
power tool plants shut down, quality degrades, unemployment rises,
etc.

Whoever can deliver the best value for my dollar (note I didn't say
"cheapest"), regardless of what imaginary boundary drawn on the surface of
the globe they inhabit, will capture my business. I do that in my business
and I do it in my personal life. If every commercial enterprise built
their business model on that principle then the best would flourish and the
poorest would wither. What a concept!

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Then they should not complain when the hardware store and the American
power tool plants shut down, quality degrades, unemployment rises,
etc.

Whoever can deliver the best value for my dollar (note I didn't say
"cheapest"), regardless of what imaginary boundary drawn on the surface of
the globe they inhabit, will capture my business. I do that in my business
and I do it in my personal life. If every commercial enterprise built
their business model on that principle then the best would flourish and the
poorest would wither. What a concept!

How do you determine "best value"?

Does it include things like whether the producers used environmentally-friendly
processes, the working conditions of the workers who actually make the product,
etc.?

Or is it based solely on the product itself, with no concern about its
production process?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

How do you determine "best value"?

Depending on the product it can be a variety of things, sometimes a very
complex mix of parameters determines "value". My factory purchases
products of many different types, complexities, which they range from pure
"commodities" like solder to specialty products like custom chips, plastic
moldings, and similar "proprietary" materials which find there way into our
finished goods.

Obviously price factors into the mix, and all other things being equal,
price wins.

But "all other things" are almost never equal. For example, some suppliers
have earned "dock to stock" status with us because their outgoing quality
control is good enough that we do not have to perform incoming quality
control. This saves us money (inspection labor) and time (no delay in
inspection) so we favor such suppliers even if they may charge slightly
higher prices, and they benefit by earlier payment because their invoice is
not held pending QA acceptance of their product. Other favorable factors
would be their willingness to deal with us on a "consigned inventory" basis,
shield us from part shortage allocations, and similar "pipeline" issues.
Suppliers with a "track record" are generally favored over "new guys", but
new guys who can demonstrate "value added" (which can be a host of things)
will certainly be given some business to prove their case. Within reason,
we will favor enterprises "close to home" because we feel an obligation to
contribute to the communities where we live and work, and there is an
obvious advantage to dealing with a supplier who you can quickly meet for
lunch to discuss issues, rather than by telecommunications or strapping a
757 to your ass for several hours.

As you can see, "best value" encompasses many factors and issues beyond the
actual physical product which you touch and feel.

Does it include things like whether the producers used
environmentally-friendly processes, the working
conditions of the workers who actually make the product,
etc.?

No ethical company would ignore those issues. Certainly we will not
knowingly deal with suppliers who pollute the environment or mistreat their
workers, but we are not staffed with EPA-like or OSHA-like inspectors and
evaluators In cases where we are qualifying a new significant new
supplier, we perform on-site evaluations which give us some visibility
of working conditions, etc., but it is naturally not an in depth review of
their HR practices, or validating their compliance with EPA standards.
Were we a huge conglomerate like General Motors or IBM, I'm sure
we'd have more formal means of dealing with this issue, but in the
meantime they obviously are subject to the usual state, federal,
provincial (or whatever) regulatory constraints. We make a special
effort in the area of supplier diversity, and support many regional
Supplier Diversity Councils, such as Chicago Minority Business
Development Council, Dallas/Ft. Worth Minority Business Development
Council, Georgia Minority Supplier Development Council, Minnesota
Minority Supplier Development Council, Virginia Regional Minority
Supplier Development Council, Southern California Regional
Purchasing Councils, Inc., and others. This context includes woman-owned
or veteran-owned enterprises.

73, de Hans, K0HB