Alun wrote in message .. .
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

snip

I think reliance on oil is too strong. More needs to be done on other
sources of energy. Fat chance with oilmen in control, not that much was
ever done before.

And the truly ironic part is that Ralph "Unsafe At Any Speed" was a
major factor in putting an oilman in the White House by dividing the
opposition in 2000. And he's poised to repeat that trick later this
year.


Agreed up to a certain point. I think that Mr Nader will find that he gets
far fewer votes this time.

I hope you are right. But it's not over till it's over.

The Democratic primaries have shown that people
are focussed on getting the oilmen out of the White House. That and the
fact that they saw what happened last time are likely to decimate his
support.

It was obvious four years ago and yet millions put their heads in the
sand.

Another example is the expectation of a trained workforce without
investing the resources in education to produce that workforce.
"Resources" doesn't just mean "money", either, though money is a big
part of it.

Agreed. The cost of education is running out of control.

It has far exceeded the general inflation level, yet is more necessary
than ever.

Here's one data point:

In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania,
tuition alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very
expensive at the time. Today the same school charges more than 10 times
that. But will the starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006 be more
than 10 times what it was in 1976, when I graduated? Is fininacial aid
10 times what it was in my time there? Nope.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Grants and
scholarships would make more sense than tax breaks for the rich.

snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get worse.
At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to offshore
production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite their
overall poverty they have more English speaking educated middle class than
America (their sheer numbers help here), and they are willing to do white
collar and professional jobs for much less.

Only because it costs so much less to live there.

Way back in 1783, when the US Constitution was written here in
Philadelphia, one of the limitations placed on Congress was that there
would be no tariffs on *exports*. *Imports* could be tarriffed/taxed
at will - and they were! This was done both as a source of income and
to protect local industry from destructive foreign competition. It is
my understanding that we still have some forms of this in place, in
the form of such things as limits on the number of cars that may be
imported without special taxes. These import quotas caused several
carmakers (mostly Japanese) to build assembly plants here in the USA.
Some cars are even built here and shipped *back to Japan*, because by
doing so they count against the import number.

Maybe it's time for that sort of thing to be expanded. Exporting jobs
may be good for some companies' bottom line in the short run, but in
the long run it spells big trouble.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Or foreign adventuring.


Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite their
overall poverty they have more English speaking educated middle class
than America (their sheer numbers help here), and they are willing to
do white collar and professional jobs for much less.

Only because it costs so much less to live there.

That's true, and ironically that's probably due to the huge number of poor
people there. Basic food and services are likely to be provided to the
Indian middle classes by people who are far poorer than we can really
imagine.


Way back in 1783, when the US Constitution was written here in
Philadelphia, one of the limitations placed on Congress was that there
would be no tariffs on *exports*. *Imports* could be tarriffed/taxed
at will - and they were! This was done both as a source of income and
to protect local industry from destructive foreign competition. It is
my understanding that we still have some forms of this in place, in
the form of such things as limits on the number of cars that may be
imported without special taxes. These import quotas caused several
carmakers (mostly Japanese) to build assembly plants here in the USA.
Some cars are even built here and shipped *back to Japan*, because by
doing so they count against the import number.

Maybe it's time for that sort of thing to be expanded. Exporting jobs
may be good for some companies' bottom line in the short run, but in
the long run it spells big trouble.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Forgive me for saying this as a foreigner, but there seems to be no limit
to the level of greed exhibited by corporate America. As you say, it will
lead to big trouble in the long run. Look at what happened to the stock
market in the '20s.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Alun wrote in message . ..
(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Or foreign adventuring.

True. We could just sit on our fat asses and let the world implode.
Then we'd have lots of dxpeditions cleverly disguised as UN peace
missions with 400,000 qso's per foray.

(William) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
. ..
(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Or foreign adventuring.

True. We could just sit on our fat asses and let the world implode.
Then we'd have lots of dxpeditions cleverly disguised as UN peace
missions with 400,000 qso's per foray.


As opposed to dxpeditions disguised as invasions?

Alun wrote in message . ..
(William) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
. ..
(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Or foreign adventuring.

True. We could just sit on our fat asses and let the world implode.
Then we'd have lots of dxpeditions cleverly disguised as UN peace
missions with 400,000 qso's per foray.


As opposed to dxpeditions disguised as invasions?

You tell me. The sun never sets on the _______________ Empire.

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
. com:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Or foreign adventuring.

We had good teachers in that....

Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite their
overall poverty they have more English speaking educated middle class
than America (their sheer numbers help here), and they are willing to
do white collar and professional jobs for much less.

Only because it costs so much less to live there.

That's true, and ironically that's probably due to the huge number of poor
people there. Basic food and services are likely to be provided to the
Indian middle classes by people who are far poorer than we can really
imagine.

That's true but there are other factors to consider: the budget deficit, the
trade deficit and the strong dollar.

The figures for the January trade deficit came out recently. The highest in US
history, something like 46 billion in one month. Much of that is with East
Asian countires like China, Japan, and maybe India. But particularly China.

Imports are inexpensive in part because these countries keep their currencies
low relative to the dollar. Because of the trade deficit, lots of dollars wind
up there, but they don't use those dollars to buy US products. Instead, they
buy US investments - both government securities and private-sector companies.

IOW we export money and jobs, and they use the money to finance our debt and
buy up the USA a little at a time.

Way back in 1783, when the US Constitution was written here in
Philadelphia, one of the limitations placed on Congress was that there
would be no tariffs on *exports*. *Imports* could be tarriffed/taxed
at will - and they were! This was done both as a source of income and
to protect local industry from destructive foreign competition. It is
my understanding that we still have some forms of this in place, in
the form of such things as limits on the number of cars that may be
imported without special taxes. These import quotas caused several
carmakers (mostly Japanese) to build assembly plants here in the USA.
Some cars are even built here and shipped *back to Japan*, because by
doing so they count against the import number.

Maybe it's time for that sort of thing to be expanded. Exporting jobs
may be good for some companies' bottom line in the short run, but in
the long run it spells big trouble.


Forgive me for saying this as a foreigner, but there seems to be no limit
to the level of greed exhibited by corporate America.

How do you define "greed", Alun? Wanting to make a profit? How much profit is
OK and how much is greed?

As you say, it will
lead to big trouble in the long run. Look at what happened to the stock
market in the '20s.

And in 2000.

73 de Jim, N2EY

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
.com:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Or foreign adventuring.

We had good teachers in that....

Guilty as charged


Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite
their overall poverty they have more English speaking educated
middle class than America (their sheer numbers help here), and they
are willing to do white collar and professional jobs for much less.

Only because it costs so much less to live there.

That's true, and ironically that's probably due to the huge number of
poor people there. Basic food and services are likely to be provided to
the Indian middle classes by people who are far poorer than we can
really imagine.

That's true but there are other factors to consider: the budget
deficit, the trade deficit and the strong dollar.

The figures for the January trade deficit came out recently. The
highest in US history, something like 46 billion in one month. Much of
that is with East Asian countires like China, Japan, and maybe India.
But particularly China.

Imports are inexpensive in part because these countries keep their
currencies low relative to the dollar. Because of the trade deficit,
lots of dollars wind up there, but they don't use those dollars to buy
US products. Instead, they buy US investments - both government
securities and private-sector companies.

IOW we export money and jobs, and they use the money to finance our
debt and buy up the USA a little at a time.

Way back in 1783, when the US Constitution was written here in
Philadelphia, one of the limitations placed on Congress was that
there would be no tariffs on *exports*. *Imports* could be
tarriffed/taxed at will - and they were! This was done both as a
source of income and to protect local industry from destructive
foreign competition. It is my understanding that we still have some
forms of this in place, in the form of such things as limits on the
number of cars that may be imported without special taxes. These
import quotas caused several carmakers (mostly Japanese) to build
assembly plants here in the USA. Some cars are even built here and
shipped *back to Japan*, because by doing so they count against the
import number.

Maybe it's time for that sort of thing to be expanded. Exporting jobs
may be good for some companies' bottom line in the short run, but in
the long run it spells big trouble.


Forgive me for saying this as a foreigner, but there seems to be no
limit to the level of greed exhibited by corporate America.

How do you define "greed", Alun? Wanting to make a profit? How much
profit is OK and how much is greed?

It's more of an attitude


As you say, it will
lead to big trouble in the long run. Look at what happened to the stock
market in the '20s.

And in 2000.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
e.com:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
snip

I think access to education is already a problem and likely to get
worse. At the same time it's probably about the only antidote to
offshore production.

Then it should be a major priority, rather than trips to Mars ans
such.

Or foreign adventuring.

We had good teachers in that....

Guilty as charged

Exactly. You'd think we'd learn by others' mistakes.

Even then, you have countries like India to worry about. Despite
their overall poverty they have more English speaking educated
middle class than America (their sheer numbers help here), and they
are willing to do white collar and professional jobs for much less.

Only because it costs so much less to live there.

That's true, and ironically that's probably due to the huge number of
poor people there. Basic food and services are likely to be provided to
the Indian middle classes by people who are far poorer than we can
really imagine.

That's true but there are other factors to consider: the budget
deficit, the trade deficit and the strong dollar.

The figures for the January trade deficit came out recently. The
highest in US history, something like 46 billion in one month. Much of
that is with East Asian countires like China, Japan, and maybe India.
But particularly China.

Imports are inexpensive in part because these countries keep their
currencies low relative to the dollar. Because of the trade deficit,
lots of dollars wind up there, but they don't use those dollars to buy
US products. Instead, they buy US investments - both government
securities and private-sector companies.

IOW we export money and jobs, and they use the money to finance our
debt and buy up the USA a little at a time.

Way back in 1783, when the US Constitution was written here in
Philadelphia, one of the limitations placed on Congress was that
there would be no tariffs on *exports*. *Imports* could be
tarriffed/taxed at will - and they were! This was done both as a
source of income and to protect local industry from destructive
foreign competition. It is my understanding that we still have some
forms of this in place, in the form of such things as limits on the
number of cars that may be imported without special taxes. These
import quotas caused several carmakers (mostly Japanese) to build
assembly plants here in the USA. Some cars are even built here and
shipped *back to Japan*, because by doing so they count against the
import number.

Maybe it's time for that sort of thing to be expanded. Exporting jobs
may be good for some companies' bottom line in the short run, but in
the long run it spells big trouble.


Forgive me for saying this as a foreigner, but there seems to be no
limit to the level of greed exhibited by corporate America.

How do you define "greed", Alun? Wanting to make a profit? How much
profit is OK and how much is greed?

It's more of an attitude

Check this out:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...6&e=17&u=/wash
post/20040311/ts_washpost/a48216_2004mar10

"Six months after promising to create an office to help the nation's
struggling manufacturers, President Bush settled on someone to head it, but
the nomination was being reconsidered last night after Democrats revealed
that his candidate had opened a factory in China."

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:


Check this out:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...6&e=17&u=/wash
post/20040311/ts_washpost/a48216_2004mar10

"Six months after promising to create an office to help the nation's
struggling manufacturers, President Bush settled on someone to head it, but
the nomination was being reconsidered last night after Democrats revealed
that his candidate had opened a factory in China."

He ended up "declining" to take the position. Probably a smart move.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

How do you define "greed", Alun? Wanting to make a profit? How much profit is
OK and how much is greed?

Profit is defined as pecuniary compensation for services rendered.

U.S. amateur radio is defined as specifically NOT for pecuniary interest.

Try to stay focussed.

LHA / WMD