In article , Bob F wrote:

wrote in message

Continue to collapse? See, this is what I'm talking about. Talk
about only looking at only the negatives. The unemployment rate is at
4.4%. That is well below the average of the past 40 years (6.0%), the
90's (5.8%), and below levels that are considered full employment.
Over the last 3 years, GDP has grown at a 3.5% rate, which is faster
than either the 80's or 90's. Inflation is under control and interest
rates are low. Real estate prices are at record levels, the Dow has
just made a new all time high, and more Americans own homes than ever
before.

If that's a continuing collapse, I want more of it!

Unemployment is down. If you ignore all the people who have
given up looking for work. And don't care that the new jobs are
very low wage. Productivity has peaked. I understand they had
to change the way they measure employment to get those
optomistic new figures.

The pyramid looks best before it collaspes. The figures the guy you are
responding to mentions are short term indicators. Long term the dollar is
not looking good and crashing it in the hands of other nations. The US
government is not reforming its ways. The people are not changing their
buying habbits. This cannot go this way forever without dire consquences.

At somepoint, there is nothing left to sell.

In article . com,
says...

krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Brent P wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

While were at it ELMINATE the IRS and income tax, go to a national
sales tax so EVERYONE pays!

The problem is that will be how everything we buy goes into a database
since the national sales tax percentage will depend on income. Swipe
your tax card at every purchase.

no flat rate on everything! everyone would get a small check monthly
as a rebate to help low income people.

google fair tax


y'all are forgetting where all the money gathered by the federal income tax
goes .... to pay the interest on the money the gov't borrows from the
Federal Reserve Bank, to finance its opressive existence. And also remember
that the Federal Reserve is actually a PRIVATE CORPORATION... so, your
federal income tax dollars are going to make a very rich, private
corporation even RICHER.

Nut, you are cracked!




except for one thing; he's telling the TRUTH!!!

You're cracked too. I suggest that you study harder. Perhaps you
can get a real job and not be such an idiot.

Hint1: The national debt is held by the Tresury in "T-bills" sold
to private citizens and foreign countries, not the Fed Reserve.

Hint2: The Fed Reserve is *NOT* private, any more than the USPS
is.

Sheesh you kids are stupid! Gop back to MTV, the Internet is
beyond you.

--
Keith

In article . com,
says...

krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Brent P wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

While were at it ELMINATE the IRS and income tax, go to a national
sales tax so EVERYONE pays!

The problem is that will be how everything we buy goes into a database
since the national sales tax percentage will depend on income. Swipe
your tax card at every purchase.

no flat rate on everything! everyone would get a small check monthly
as a rebate to help low income people.

google fair tax


y'all are forgetting where all the money gathered by the federal income tax
goes .... to pay the interest on the money the gov't borrows from the
Federal Reserve Bank, to finance its opressive existence. And also remember
that the Federal Reserve is actually a PRIVATE CORPORATION... so, your
federal income tax dollars are going to make a very rich, private
corporation even RICHER.

Nut, you are cracked!




except that he's telling the TRUTH!!!...............which you don't
want anyone to know.

Yep, you can't handle the Internet. Now give mommy back her PC and
go to bed.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...

wrote in message

Continue to collapse? See, this is what I'm talking about. Talk
about only looking at only the negatives. The unemployment rate is at
4.4%. That is well below the average of the past 40 years (6.0%), the
90's (5.8%), and below levels that are considered full employment.
Over the last 3 years, GDP has grown at a 3.5% rate, which is faster
than either the 80's or 90's. Inflation is under control and interest
rates are low. Real estate prices are at record levels, the Dow has
just made a new all time high, and more Americans own homes than ever
before.

If that's a continuing collapse, I want more of it!

Unemployment is down. If you ignore all the people who have
given up looking for work.

zIf they've given up looking for work they are *NOT* unemployed.
Perhaps they're retired?

And don't care that the new jobs are
very low wage.

That's why the income tax collections are at an all time high?
Yep, low wages = high taxes. (what a maroon!)

Productivity has peaked. I understand they had
to change the way they measure employment to get those
optomistic new figures.

Nope. The (un)employment measurements have been standardized for
some time and BTW, have nothing to do with unemployment insurance.

Get a grip and learn something. Times aren't bar, unless you're a
loser living with mommy. ...are you?

--
Keith

"Brent P" wrote in message
. ..
In article om,
wrote:

Of course there is another aspect of this that you completely overlook.
And that is the great benefit of people being able to buy that car for
$7000. All the folks who complain about jobs lost to lower cost
labor completely ignore the fact that everyone is also receiving a huge
positive benefit from this. This is especially true of lower income
families. If they had to pay 2X for everything they buy at Walmart and
everywhere else, it's not clear that they would be any better off.

Lower income people in the USA cannot compete with near slave wages. It
cuts them out of the job market. It's doing them no favors what-so-ever.
Meanwhile, if manufacturing were kept in the USA and illegals weren't
undercutting the wages by flooding the job market with bodies, the demand
for labor would allow these people to find work at a decent wage and
afford to buy the products they are building as well or better than the
products from china etc.


But then the quarterly report might look so good. That wouldn't do.

Bob

Brent P wrote:
In article om, wrote:

Of course there is another aspect of this that you completely overlook.
And that is the great benefit of people being able to buy that car for
$7000. All the folks who complain about jobs lost to lower cost
labor completely ignore the fact that everyone is also receiving a huge
positive benefit from this. This is especially true of lower income
families. If they had to pay 2X for everything they buy at Walmart and
everywhere else, it's not clear that they would be any better off.

Lower income people in the USA cannot compete with near slave wages. It
cuts them out of the job market. It's doing them no favors what-so-ever.

Unemployment is near historic lows, GDP is growing at 3.5%, inflation
and interest rates are both low, real estate is at record highs, and
more Americans own homes today than ever before. No reasonable person
and certainly no economist, would call that a collapsing economy.

As for low cost products doing low income people no good, that is
absolutely false. Look at who shops at Kmart, Walmart, etc. Those
products would cost much more if it were not for foreign low cost labor
producing them. These low cost products are of tremendous benefit to
everyone, including the low income. As someone earlier pointed out,
China is planning a $7000 entry level car. Do you think that is of no
benefit to low income families here in the USA? You're so biased only
looking for negatives that you can't see the forest for the trees.



Meanwhile, if manufacturing were kept in the USA and illegals weren't
undercutting the wages by flooding the job market with bodies, the demand
for labor would allow these people to find work at a decent wage and
afford to buy the products they are building as well or better than the
products from china etc.

So, now they make twice as much. Now they get pushed into higher tax
brackets, which the liberals think is a good thing. So, they pay
higher taxes. Then they pay 2X for a hammer, shirt, TV, etc. It's
not at all clear to me that they are much better off. Plus, if you
look at the countries that have tried to protect themselves from the
real world economy, they are doing far worse than those that encourage
free trade. What kind of cars do you think you would be getting from
Detroit today, if we had cut off car imports the last 25 years?
You'd be getting a real piece of crap, because it was world competition
that forced them to start building a much better product.

except for one thing; he's telling the TRUTH!!!

You're cracked too. I suggest that you study harder. Perhaps you
can get a real job and not be such an idiot.

Hint1: The national debt is held by the Tresury in "T-bills" sold
to private citizens and foreign countries, not the Fed Reserve.

Hint2: The Fed Reserve is *NOT* private, any more than the USPS
is.

Sheesh you kids are stupid! Gop back to MTV, the Internet is
beyond you.

The FEDERAL RESERVE is no more FEDERAL than FEDERAL EXPRESS ...

it is YOU that need to do your homework, sparky!

except that he's telling the TRUTH!!!...............which you don't
want anyone to know.

Yep, you can't handle the Internet. Now give mommy back her PC and
go to bed.

--


Presuming this material is not above your reading and comprehension level;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve

From the overview:

The Federal Reserve System is a quasi-governmental banking system composed
of (1) a presidentially-appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) 12
regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the
nation; and (4) numerous private member banks, which own varying amounts of
stock in the regional Federal Reserve Banks. Ben Bernanke serves as the
current Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Note the term "quasi-governmental" and also notice that the Federal Reserve
Bank itself is not listed, but the Federal Reserve System as a whole. The
Governors and Committee are the psuedo government aspects of the "system".
The bank itself is comprised of the 12 Reserve Banks which are owned by
numerous private banks which own stock.

The curious thing is this: how can any person or entity own stock in a
governmental entity. We are not talking about Bonds, we are talking about
Stock which the government does not issue. The stocks are held by, and thus
owned, by numerous private banks, some of which have publicly traded stocks.
Notice the lack of specifics as to the stock holders, only that they are
private.

Also read the Legal status and position in Government section:

The Federal Reserve Banks are nominally "owned" by the private member banks
(see below). In Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982), the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that "the
Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA
[the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and
locally controlled corporations." The opinion also stated that "the Reserve
Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some
purposes." [1]

See ... these banks are NOT Federal Instruments which means that they cannot
be sued for Torts as part of the government, or when acting on its behalf.
Also, the [1] note links to: http://volunteersilver.com/lewis.html which is
very interesting reading.

So, in short ... The Federal Reserve Bank(s) are not governmental
insturments, or entities. They have the ability to CREATE money (and loan it
to the government) and charge INTEREST on the money it creates.

Nut Cracker wrote:
except for one thing; he's telling the TRUTH!!!
You're cracked too. I suggest that you study harder. Perhaps you
can get a real job and not be such an idiot.

Hint1: The national debt is held by the Tresury in "T-bills" sold
to private citizens and foreign countries, not the Fed Reserve.

Hint2: The Fed Reserve is *NOT* private, any more than the USPS
is.

Sheesh you kids are stupid! Gop back to MTV, the Internet is
beyond you.

The FEDERAL RESERVE is no more FEDERAL than FEDERAL EXPRESS

You stupid ****ing tinfoil-hat-wearing
conspiracy-believing ****bag. The Federal Reserve
System is a creation of the federal government.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
is an independent government agency. The Board is
subject to laws like the Freedom of Information Act
and the Privacy Act which cover Federal agencies and
not private entities. Like most other independent
agencies, its decisions do not have to be ratified
by the President or anyone else in the executive or
legislative branches of government. The Board of
Governors does not receive funding from Congress,
and the terms of the members of the Board span
multiple presidential and congressional terms. Once
a member of the Board of Governors is appointed by
the president, he or she is relatively independent
(although the law provides for the possibility of
removal by the President "for cause" under 12 U.S.C.
§ 242).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ederal_Reserve


Thus, we see that the Federal Reserve System is, of
course, a quasi-governmental agency that exists at the
*federal*, not state or lower, level of government, and
it indeed is correct to use the word "federal" in
talking about it.

You, of course, are a wild-eyed fanatic and ****bag.

In article ,
says...


except for one thing; he's telling the TRUTH!!!

You're cracked too. I suggest that you study harder. Perhaps you
can get a real job and not be such an idiot.

Hint1: The national debt is held by the Tresury in "T-bills" sold
to private citizens and foreign countries, not the Fed Reserve.

Hint2: The Fed Reserve is *NOT* private, any more than the USPS
is.

Sheesh you kids are stupid! Gop back to MTV, the Internet is
beyond you.

The FEDERAL RESERVE is no more FEDERAL than FEDERAL EXPRESS ...

it is YOU that need to do your homework, sparky!

Hey, nut-bag. The national debt is owned by people and other
governments, via the US Treasury (ever hear of T-Bills?) and has
*NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FED*.

Now, turn in your tinfoil hat for a nice peaceful lobotomy. You
deserve the quiet.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...



except that he's telling the TRUTH!!!...............which you don't
want anyone to know.

Yep, you can't handle the Internet. Now give mommy back her PC and
go to bed.

--

Back away from mommy's PC. Do not call daddy (he's tied up in the
laundry now). Mommy is not going to be happy because she had plans
later for daddy...

--
Keith

In article . com, wrote:

Brent P wrote:
In article om, wrote:

Of course there is another aspect of this that you completely overlook.
And that is the great benefit of people being able to buy that car for
$7000. All the folks who complain about jobs lost to lower cost
labor completely ignore the fact that everyone is also receiving a huge
positive benefit from this. This is especially true of lower income
families. If they had to pay 2X for everything they buy at Walmart and
everywhere else, it's not clear that they would be any better off.

Lower income people in the USA cannot compete with near slave wages. It
cuts them out of the job market. It's doing them no favors what-so-ever.

Unemployment is near historic lows, GDP is growing at 3.5%, inflation
and interest rates are both low, real estate is at record highs, and
more Americans own homes today than ever before. No reasonable person
and certainly no economist, would call that a collapsing economy.

I didn't call it a collasping economy. I called it an economy of short
term thinking. That is unless you think that 9 trillion in debt and
several times that in future liabilities is something you can shrug off.
Then there is the clever calculations that produce some of those figures
you quote.

As for low cost products doing low income people no good, that is
absolutely false.

In the long term it doesn't. For the short term, get the crap now sure.
But in the long term no. Unless they are always supposed to be poor.

Look at who shops at Kmart, Walmart, etc. Those
products would cost much more if it were not for foreign low cost labor
producing them.

Funny how I can find even in those stores, in corners and places made in
USA goods that cost no more and even less much of the time.

These low cost products are of tremendous benefit to
everyone, including the low income. As someone earlier pointed out,
China is planning a $7000 entry level car. Do you think that is of no
benefit to low income families here in the USA? You're so biased only
looking for negatives that you can't see the forest for the trees.

I don't think you understand the long term game. China is playing a long
term game while the US is playing a short term one. Guess who benefits
from this in the long term? China will be the super power and the US will
in many respects be third worlded. Or do you think it is a good thing to
have people in the USA compete for jobs with china?

Meanwhile, if manufacturing were kept in the USA and illegals weren't
undercutting the wages by flooding the job market with bodies, the demand
for labor would allow these people to find work at a decent wage and
afford to buy the products they are building as well or better than the
products from china etc.

So, now they make twice as much. Now they get pushed into higher tax
brackets, which the liberals think is a good thing. So, they pay
higher taxes. Then they pay 2X for a hammer, shirt, TV, etc. It's
not at all clear to me that they are much better off. Plus, if you
look at the countries that have tried to protect themselves from the
real world economy, they are doing far worse than those that encourage
free trade. What kind of cars do you think you would be getting from
Detroit today, if we had cut off car imports the last 25 years?
You'd be getting a real piece of crap, because it was world competition
that forced them to start building a much better product.

Nice set of strawmen you write.

Brent P wrote:
In article . com, wrote:

Brent P wrote:
In article om, wrote:

Of course there is another aspect of this that you completely overlook.
And that is the great benefit of people being able to buy that car for
$7000. All the folks who complain about jobs lost to lower cost
labor completely ignore the fact that everyone is also receiving a huge
positive benefit from this. This is especially true of lower income
families. If they had to pay 2X for everything they buy at Walmart and
everywhere else, it's not clear that they would be any better off.

Lower income people in the USA cannot compete with near slave wages. It
cuts them out of the job market. It's doing them no favors what-so-ever.

Unemployment is near historic lows, GDP is growing at 3.5%, inflation
and interest rates are both low, real estate is at record highs, and
more Americans own homes today than ever before. No reasonable person
and certainly no economist, would call that a collapsing economy.

I didn't call it a collasping economy. I called it an economy of short
term thinking. That is unless you think that 9 trillion in debt and
several times that in future liabilities is something you can shrug off.
Then there is the clever calculations that produce some of those figures
you quote.


So, it's better to rely on personal opinion, than to look at decades of
real economic data that is readily available? It's not clear what
exact "$9 trillion in debt you are referring to." If it's the US govt
debt, an absolute number doesn't mean much by itself. Ask grandpa what
he paid for his first house. Does that mean everyone who pays 10X that
for a house today is doing something wrong? If you look at govt debt
as a percentage of GDP, today it's about the same as it was in the mid
90's and also about the same as it was in the mid 50's. During WWII,
it was twice as high. We survived that, didn't we?



As for low cost products doing low income people no good, that is
absolutely false.

In the long term it doesn't. For the short term, get the crap now sure.
But in the long term no. Unless they are always supposed to be poor.


Of course it benefits them in the long term, by low income people being
able to conitnue to buy good cheaply. That continues on.



Look at who shops at Kmart, Walmart, etc. Those
products would cost much more if it were not for foreign low cost labor
producing them.

Funny how I can find even in those stores, in corners and places made in
USA goods that cost no more and even less much of the time.

And do you think you'd find them at those prices if you eliminated
foreign competition? The US companies that have low prices are
responding to other suppliers in the market place. Remove them, and
prices go up. And the fact that you can find US made goods that are
competitive shows that the US is competitve, which shoots the slave
labor argument, especially with the US at full employment.




These low cost products are of tremendous benefit to
everyone, including the low income. As someone earlier pointed out,
China is planning a $7000 entry level car. Do you think that is of no
benefit to low income families here in the USA? You're so biased only
looking for negatives that you can't see the forest for the trees.

I don't think you understand the long term game.

I don't think you understand economics, the great benefit of free
trade, and the huge problems that get caused when you try to have govt
correct perceived imperfections in free markets. Free markets aren't
perfect. Sometimes they are even brutal. But they are far better to
solutions of protectionism, that result in govt management of the
economy and trade wars.


China is playing a long term game while the US is playing a short term one.

According to you, because you focus only on the negatives. There are
many US companies that lead the world today today in many areas. Would
you rather have MSFT, INTC, Boeing, etc, or a country with unskilled
laborers making shirts?


Guess who benefits
from this in the long term? China will be the super power and the US will
in many respects be third worlded. Or do you think it is a good thing to
have people in the USA compete for jobs with china?

What works is a free economy. And in that scenario, each country
makes products that fit their workforce and capabilities. Everyone
made your argument 40 years ago, when Japan was the boogey man. Then
is was supposed to be Taiwan that was going to ruin us all. Then
Korea. Funny how we are still here and by any reasonable
interpretation of actual economic statistics, we're doing quite well.

If we're failing anywhere, it's because we have a segment of the
population that doesn't get educated, doesn't even finish high school.
The solution to that is to work on that problem, not try to compete in
making shirts or baskets on the theory that the solution is to have
more no skills jobs to compete with foreign low cost labor.



Meanwhile, if manufacturing were kept in the USA and illegals weren't
undercutting the wages by flooding the job market with bodies, the demand
for labor would allow these people to find work at a decent wage and
afford to buy the products they are building as well or better than the
products from china etc.

So, now they make twice as much. Now they get pushed into higher tax
brackets, which the liberals think is a good thing. So, they pay
higher taxes. Then they pay 2X for a hammer, shirt, TV, etc. It's
not at all clear to me that they are much better off. Plus, if you
look at the countries that have tried to protect themselves from the
real world economy, they are doing far worse than those that encourage
free trade. What kind of cars do you think you would be getting from
Detroit today, if we had cut off car imports the last 25 years?
You'd be getting a real piece of crap, because it was world competition
that forced them to start building a much better product.

Nice set of strawmen you write.


Just simple economic fact.

In article . com, wrote:
Brent P wrote:

Unemployment is near historic lows, GDP is growing at 3.5%, inflation
and interest rates are both low, real estate is at record highs, and
more Americans own homes today than ever before. No reasonable person
and certainly no economist, would call that a collapsing economy.

I didn't call it a collasping economy. I called it an economy of short
term thinking. That is unless you think that 9 trillion in debt and
several times that in future liabilities is something you can shrug off.
Then there is the clever calculations that produce some of those figures
you quote.

So, it's better to rely on personal opinion, than to look at decades of
real economic data that is readily available?

Why don't you pay attention to people from the World Bank, Federal
Reserve, etc and so on if you don't believe me?

It's not clear what
exact "$9 trillion in debt you are referring to." If it's the US govt
debt, an absolute number doesn't mean much by itself.

Well if you want to play games with the currancy.

Ask grandpa what
he paid for his first house. Does that mean everyone who pays 10X that
for a house today is doing something wrong? If you look at govt debt
as a percentage of GDP, today it's about the same as it was in the mid
90's and also about the same as it was in the mid 50's. During WWII,
it was twice as high. We survived that, didn't we?

So you want to make the debt smaller by inflating the currancy. That
appears to be what is being done. Sure, the only problem is that it wipes
out the savings, the hard earned money of the people. If you don't think
that has consquences you're deluding yourself. Or maybe you just don't
care because you have no savings?

As for low cost products doing low income people no good, that is
absolutely false.

In the long term it doesn't. For the short term, get the crap now sure.
But in the long term no. Unless they are always supposed to be poor.

Of course it benefits them in the long term, by low income people being
able to conitnue to buy good cheaply. That continues on.

But work as slaves... like in china. What happens to those chinese goods
once your plan to inflate the currancy to solve the US debt problem is
put into action? Oh, that's right, they are suddenly incredlibly expensive!

But if you don't want to listen to me about the danger of economic
collaspe, maybe you'll listen to this guy:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/1...obel_2001.html

I mean he's only been chief economist for the world bank and has a nobel
prize in the field.... and he's not agreeing with you...

Look at who shops at Kmart, Walmart, etc. Those
products would cost much more if it were not for foreign low cost labor
producing them.

Funny how I can find even in those stores, in corners and places made in
USA goods that cost no more and even less much of the time.

And do you think you'd find them at those prices if you eliminated
foreign competition?

Strawman.

These low cost products are of tremendous benefit to
everyone, including the low income. As someone earlier pointed out,
China is planning a $7000 entry level car. Do you think that is of no
benefit to low income families here in the USA? You're so biased only
looking for negatives that you can't see the forest for the trees.

I don't think you understand the long term game.

I don't think you understand economics, the great benefit of free
trade, and the huge problems that get caused when you try to have govt
correct perceived imperfections in free markets. Free markets aren't
perfect. Sometimes they are even brutal. But they are far better to
solutions of protectionism, that result in govt management of the
economy and trade wars.

There is no such thing as free trade. It doesn't exist. Maybe we'd have
free trade if the US had no labor laws, no environmental protections, and
completed it's move towards a police state. Then, maybe we'd be on an
even footing with china and then it would be 'free trade'. Do you really
want to live where you can see the air? Where it is so thick and brown
that it's as if you could cut it with a knife?

Or do you feel it's perfectally ok that people live in such sesspools
working more or less as company slaves under an oppressive police state
that controls access to information and forbids things like freedom
speech to make you cheap goods?

China is playing a long term game while the US is playing a short term one.

According to you, because you focus only on the negatives. There are
many US companies that lead the world today today in many areas. Would
you rather have MSFT, INTC, Boeing, etc, or a country with unskilled
laborers making shirts?

You don't seem to grasp the whole picture. Guess who's going to be
building Airbus aircraft? Guess... you think any job is safe? You're
deluding yourself. It's not just no-skill low-skill or 'dirty-jobs' that
are going to china. In fact, with the manufactruring now much of the
engineering is going too...

The knowledge drain from the US to China has been monumental as well. US
company starts manufacturing over there, next thing they know they have a
new competitor using everything they learned from the US company.


Guess who benefits
from this in the long term? China will be the super power and the US will
in many respects be third worlded. Or do you think it is a good thing to
have people in the USA compete for jobs with china?

What works is a free economy.

There is no such thing. Then again you probably don't know about China's
local content laws either. If a given percentage of your product isn't
made in China you will suffer high tariffs selling it in China. Maybe in
the name of a 'free economy' the US can be like China in that respect?

And in that scenario, each country
makes products that fit their workforce and capabilities. Everyone
made your argument 40 years ago, when Japan was the boogey man. Then
is was supposed to be Taiwan that was going to ruin us all. Then
Korea. Funny how we are still here and by any reasonable
interpretation of actual economic statistics, we're doing quite well.

Japan was never a boogey man. That is a false argument, Japan doesn't use
slave labor, Japan has been an industrialized nation since before world
war two, it has labor and environmental protections. It's companies
competed with US companies on a more or less even footing. What is going
on with China is that US companies are relocating their manufacturing to
a police state where it can pay people next to nothing. That's
considerably different and only those people with no grasp of the
realities of the situation make such a comparison.

If we're failing anywhere, it's because we have a segment of the
population that doesn't get educated, doesn't even finish high school.
The solution to that is to work on that problem, not try to compete in
making shirts or baskets on the theory that the solution is to have
more no skills jobs to compete with foreign low cost labor.

Again you have no grasp of the situation. It's not just such things being
done in China. I suggest you start paying closer attention to things
around you. Maybe even check the tag on the back of your computer
monitor.

Nice set of strawmen you write.

Just simple economic fact.

I suggest you learn what a strawman is.

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...



except that he's telling the TRUTH!!!...............which you don't
want anyone to know.

Yep, you can't handle the Internet. Now give mommy back her PC and
go to bed.

--

Back away from mommy's PC. Do not call daddy (he's tied up in the
laundry now). Mommy is not going to be happy because she had plans
later for daddy...

--
Keith

whatever dude ... drink more koolaide and you'll be just fine.

Brent P wrote:
In article . com, wrote:
Brent P wrote:

Unemployment is near historic lows, GDP is growing at 3.5%, inflation
and interest rates are both low, real estate is at record highs, and
more Americans own homes today than ever before. No reasonable person
and certainly no economist, would call that a collapsing economy.

I didn't call it a collasping economy. I called it an economy of short
term thinking. That is unless you think that 9 trillion in debt and
several times that in future liabilities is something you can shrug off.
Then there is the clever calculations that produce some of those figures
you quote.

So, it's better to rely on personal opinion, than to look at decades of
real economic data that is readily available?

Why don't you pay attention to people from the World Bank, Federal
Reserve, etc and so on if you don't believe me?

It's not clear what
exact "$9 trillion in debt you are referring to." If it's the US govt
debt, an absolute number doesn't mean much by itself.

Well if you want to play games with the currancy.

See, again you show your lack of grasp of any real economic data. The
issue of what debt you are referring to has nothing to do with playing
games with currency. It's the question of what debt you are referring
to. Did you mean US govt debt? US govt debt owned by foreigners?
Consumer debt?




Ask grandpa what
he paid for his first house. Does that mean everyone who pays 10X that
for a house today is doing something wrong? If you look at govt debt
as a percentage of GDP, today it's about the same as it was in the mid
90's and also about the same as it was in the mid 50's. During WWII,
it was twice as high. We survived that, didn't we?

So you want to make the debt smaller by inflating the currancy.

No, I never said that. Any economist will tell you that in free
markets, some small level of price inflation is desirable. And that
means unless you compare debt in the 50's to the size of the economy
then, or some other data that factors in inflation, it's meaningless.


That
appears to be what is being done.

No, because last time I checked, inflation was in control and around
3%, which is a far cry from when it was triple that in the 70's. Or
the double digit levels of many of the countries around the world that
practice your ideas and try to have the govt pursue a trade policy of
blocking imports.

Sure, the only problem is that it wipes
out the savings, the hard earned money of the people. If you don't think
that has consquences you're deluding yourself. Or maybe you just don't
care because you have no savings?

Again, check the facts before you jump to wild end of the world
predictions. Inflation is at 3%, well within the range that is
recognized as ideal. The period when savings were being eaten away by
inflation was the 70's and that's long gone. Just look in the
newspaper and you will find all the banks offering savings alternatives
of 5+%. With inflation at 3%, that 's a positive return, last time I
checked. But, then I check, instead of making stuff up.




As for low cost products doing low income people no good, that is
absolutely false.

In the long term it doesn't. For the short term, get the crap now sure.
But in the long term no. Unless they are always supposed to be poor.

Of course it benefits them in the long term, by low income people being
able to conitnue to buy good cheaply. That continues on.

But work as slaves... like in china.

Free markets benefit all. Those Chinese are happy to work and get the
wages they get. Over time, they improve themselves, save, get better
jobs and move up the economic ladder. It's exactly what's happening
in China if you look at the real facts. Look at Shanhei. It's a
booming city. Or look how the boogey men of past have improved their
countries, ie Japan, China. Compare that to countries that have
tried to manage trade the most, and they have failed miserably.


What happens to those chinese goods
once your plan to inflate the currancy to solve the US debt problem is
put into action?

Never said that was my plan. All I said is you have to put any
economic number in perspective. To rail about some debt number
without comparing it to anything else, like the SIZE OF THE ECONOMY,
renders it just about meaningless. As an example of that, I gave you
the case of grandpa's house, but that went right over your head.



Oh, that's right, they are suddenly incredlibly expensive!

But if you don't want to listen to me about the danger of economic
collaspe, maybe you'll listen to this guy:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/1...obel_2001.html

I mean he's only been chief economist for the world bank and has a nobel
prize in the field.... and he's not agreeing with you...

I don;t see anywhere that he said free trade is bad, or that we need to
do something radical to compete with China. Plus, this is a classic
and shows where he's coming from:

"Stiglitz commented on the tax cut advocated by the Bush Administration
and passed by Congress earlier this year, saying that it was not
intended to boost the economy, but, rather, to limit the federal
government's discretionary spending. He added this is why the tax cut,
which included rebates distributed in recent weeks, has failed to
stimulate the economy."


He said that on 10/10/01. First, the Bush tax cuts hadn;'t even taken
effect yet. Bush only took office 10 months prior. Surely this guy
can't be serious that tax cuts that haven't even gone into effect yet
are not working. Today the economy is growing at 3.5%, better than the
average of the 80's and 90's, and unemployment is at historic lows. And
federal revenue as a percent of GDP is 18.4%, which is slightly above
where it's been for the last 40 years. The federal deficit is coming
down faster than anyone expected.

So, your economist has egg all over his face.










Look at who shops at Kmart, Walmart, etc. Those
products would cost much more if it were not for foreign low cost labor
producing them.

Funny how I can find even in those stores, in corners and places made in
USA goods that cost no more and even less much of the time.

And do you think you'd find them at those prices if you eliminated
foreign competition?

Strawman.

Economic fact. Take an economics course or read a magazine.






These low cost products are of tremendous benefit to
everyone, including the low income. As someone earlier pointed out,
China is planning a $7000 entry level car. Do you think that is of no
benefit to low income families here in the USA? You're so biased only
looking for negatives that you can't see the forest for the trees.

I don't think you understand the long term game.

I don't think you understand economics, the great benefit of free
trade, and the huge problems that get caused when you try to have govt
correct perceived imperfections in free markets. Free markets aren't
perfect. Sometimes they are even brutal. But they are far better to
solutions of protectionism, that result in govt management of the
economy and trade wars.

There is no such thing as free trade. It doesn't exist. Maybe we'd have
free trade if the US had no labor laws, no environmental protections, and
completed it's move towards a police state. Then, maybe we'd be on an
even footing with china and then it would be 'free trade'. Do you really
want to live where you can see the air? Where it is so thick and brown
that it's as if you could cut it with a knife?


Free trade is where we don't listen to guys like you and try to lock
out foreign competition on the faulty notion that everyone is going to
be better off.




Or do you feel it's perfectally ok that people live in such sesspools
working more or less as company slaves under an oppressive police state
that controls access to information and forbids things like freedom
speech to make you cheap goods?

I'm the one for FREEDOM, including trade. Your the one that find
something wrong with folks in China providing some products which we
get an good prices and that help them improve their lives by working up
the economic ladder.




China is playing a long term game while the US is playing a short term one.

According to you, because you focus only on the negatives. There are
many US companies that lead the world today today in many areas. Would
you rather have MSFT, INTC, Boeing, etc, or a country with unskilled
laborers making shirts?

You don't seem to grasp the whole picture. Guess who's going to be
building Airbus aircraft? Guess... you think any job is safe? You're
deluding yourself. It's not just no-skill low-skill or 'dirty-jobs' that
are going to china. In fact, with the manufactruring now much of the
engineering is going too...


Oh no! Airbus! My God, more boogey men! Airbus seems to have
their tits in the wringer at the moment with the A380, don't they?
Sure they are competition, but that's good for everyone. If Boeing
had no competition, we's still be flying around in planes that cost
more, used more gas, were not as safe or comfortable, etc. And Airbus
is only using China for some components, not the whole plane. Don't
worry, being Western Europe based, Airbus is gonna be run a lot closer
to your ideas of how to protect workers and better things than here in
the US.



The knowledge drain from the US to China has been monumental as well. US
company starts manufacturing over there, next thing they know they have a
new competitor using everything they learned from the US company.


Oh! Yes, better to hide everything and erect obstacles to trade and
knowledge. I don't suppose we learned anything about cost effective
manufacturing and quality from Japan either, did we?





Guess who benefits
from this in the long term? China will be the super power and the US will
in many respects be third worlded. Or do you think it is a good thing to
have people in the USA compete for jobs with china?

What works is a free economy.

There is no such thing. Then again you probably don't know about China's
local content laws either. If a given percentage of your product isn't
made in China you will suffer high tariffs selling it in China. Maybe in
the name of a 'free economy' the US can be like China in that respect?

And in that scenario, each country
makes products that fit their workforce and capabilities. Everyone
made your argument 40 years ago, when Japan was the boogey man. Then
is was supposed to be Taiwan that was going to ruin us all. Then
Korea. Funny how we are still here and by any reasonable
interpretation of actual economic statistics, we're doing quite well.

Japan was never a boogey man. That is a false argument, Japan doesn't use
slave labor, Japan has been an industrialized nation since before world
war two, it has labor and environmental protections. It's companies
competed with US companies on a more or less even footing. What is going
on with China is that US companies are relocating their manufacturing to
a police state where it can pay people next to nothing. That's
considerably different and only those people with no grasp of the
realities of the situation make such a comparison.

Typical elitist attitude. You know what's best for everyone.
Because someone makes a fraction of the wages somewhere else, we should
lock them out, so they go unemployed and hungry instead. These people
want to work and are happy with the wages. Over time, they lift
themselves up the economic scale, just as anyone who wants to can here
in the US. Look as Shanghei. Accoridng to you, it should be a slum.





If we're failing anywhere, it's because we have a segment of the
population that doesn't get educated, doesn't even finish high school.
The solution to that is to work on that problem, not try to compete in
making shirts or baskets on the theory that the solution is to have
more no skills jobs to compete with foreign low cost labor.

Again you have no grasp of the situation. It's not just such things being
done in China. I suggest you start paying closer attention to things
around you. Maybe even check the tag on the back of your computer
monitor.

I need to pay attention? You're the one relying on personal opinion
instead of real economic numbers. You sound like the typical whacko
leftist, running around saying the economy is terrible, worst it's been
since the great depression and basing it on what you know to be,
instead of any real data.

In article .com, wrote:
Brent P wrote:

Why don't you pay attention to people from the World Bank, Federal
Reserve, etc and so on if you don't believe me?

It's not clear what
exact "$9 trillion in debt you are referring to." If it's the US govt
debt, an absolute number doesn't mean much by itself.

Well if you want to play games with the currancy.

See, again you show your lack of grasp of any real economic data.

You're not getting it....

The
issue of what debt you are referring to has nothing to do with playing
games with currency.

You just stated that the number is meaningless, and in the sense that the
currancy is not related to anything real, you're correct. Any number of
games can be played with it.

It's the question of what debt you are referring
to. Did you mean US govt debt? US govt debt owned by foreigners?
Consumer debt?

The 9 trillion figure is federal government debt. If you had half the
clue you claim to have you would have known that.

Ask grandpa what
he paid for his first house. Does that mean everyone who pays 10X that
for a house today is doing something wrong? If you look at govt debt
as a percentage of GDP, today it's about the same as it was in the mid
90's and also about the same as it was in the mid 50's. During WWII,
it was twice as high. We survived that, didn't we?

So you want to make the debt smaller by inflating the currancy.

No, I never said that. Any economist will tell you that in free
markets, some small level of price inflation is desirable. And that
means unless you compare debt in the 50's to the size of the economy
then, or some other data that factors in inflation, it's meaningless.

What I responded to, is you writing 'don't worry about the debt, it will
appear much smaller in the future'. The only way that happens is when the
dollar buys less, inflation. Percentage of GNP is figures don't lie but
liars figure sort of thing. Just like your other figures, they are
manufactured and calculated in such a way as to get you not to worry. The
problem is there isn't enough revenue for the US federal government to
pay the debt and the US government isn't slowing down spending to pay it
back either. You cannot grow debt forever without consquences even if the
GNP keeps growing.

That appears to be what is being done.

No, because last time I checked, inflation was in control and around
3%, which is a far cry from when it was triple that in the 70's. Or
the double digit levels of many of the countries around the world that
practice your ideas and try to have the govt pursue a trade policy of
blocking imports.

The Federal reserve has been growing the money supply and has now made
the figures there on secret. A growing supply of dollars means a weaker
dollar. Again, you seem way too focused on the here and now. Short term
thinking. What is being done is short term... the long term is being
neglected for the short. You seem to understand this as you avoid any
discussion of the long term issues. You keep focusing on the government's
'feel good and go to sleep' figures for the moment.

Sure, the only problem is that it wipes
out the savings, the hard earned money of the people. If you don't think
that has consquences you're deluding yourself. Or maybe you just don't
care because you have no savings?

Again, check the facts before you jump to wild end of the world
predictions. Inflation is at 3%, well within the range that is
recognized as ideal. The period when savings were being eaten away by
inflation was the 70's and that's long gone.

So you're also a member of the 'it can't happen again crowd'. I am sure
people said similiar in the 1960s.... and then came the 70s and stagflation.

Just look in the
newspaper and you will find all the banks offering savings alternatives
of 5+%. With inflation at 3%, that 's a positive return, last time I
checked. But, then I check, instead of making stuff up.

Once again you refuse to look at the long term. The US is not making
things others want. Dollars are piling up overseas.

Of course it benefits them in the long term, by low income people being
able to conitnue to buy good cheaply. That continues on.

But work as slaves... like in china.

Free markets benefit all.

It isn't a free market.

Those Chinese are happy to work and get the wages they get.

So says the slave master.

Over time, they improve themselves, save, get better
jobs and move up the economic ladder.

They don't need to ruin the US manufacturing base to do so. China is a
large nation that could bring itself up on it's internal markets _ALONE_.

It's exactly what's happening
in China if you look at the real facts. Look at Shanhei. It's a
booming city.

I see a government that takes people's land and makes them homeless. Land
they've had in their families for centuries and then gives it to
corporate interests to profit from. It's tyranny. And now we have that
here in the USA given the New London decision.

Or look how the boogey men of past have improved their
countries, ie Japan, China. Compare that to countries that have
tried to manage trade the most, and they have failed miserably.

As I pointed out to you before, there is no comparison between Japan and
China. It's not the same on any level.

What happens to those chinese goods
once your plan to inflate the currancy to solve the US debt problem is
put into action?

Never said that was my plan. All I said is you have to put any
economic number in perspective. To rail about some debt number
without comparing it to anything else, like the SIZE OF THE ECONOMY,
renders it just about meaningless. As an example of that, I gave you
the case of grandpa's house, but that went right over your head.

No, you just didn't understand the implications of what you stated. Do
you run your personal finances ever increasing your debt load as your
income increases? Pretty stupid way to run one's finances don't you
agree? Always growing one's debt load, keeping it maxed out? It's a
stupid way to run personal finances and even worse when a government's
finances are run that way.

Plus that federal debt doesn't even include the future liabilities that
there is no projected funding for.

But if you don't want to listen to me about the danger of economic
collaspe, maybe you'll listen to this guy:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/1...obel_2001.html

I mean he's only been chief economist for the world bank and has a nobel
prize in the field.... and he's not agreeing with you...

I don;t see anywhere that he said free trade is bad, or that we need to
do something radical to compete with China. Plus, this is a classic
and shows where he's coming from:

Nice strawman. I haven't argued free trade is bad....

So, your economist has egg all over his face.

You don't get it and never will. Why don't you do some further poking
around? And BTW, your neo-con spin job doesn't cut it either.

And do you think you'd find them at those prices if you eliminated
foreign competition?

Strawman.

Economic fact. Take an economics course or read a magazine.

I never made any such argument. That's why it's a strawman. Grow a clue!

I don't think you understand the long term game.

I don't think you understand economics, the great benefit of free
trade, and the huge problems that get caused when you try to have govt
correct perceived imperfections in free markets. Free markets aren't
perfect. Sometimes they are even brutal. But they are far better to
solutions of protectionism, that result in govt management of the
economy and trade wars.

There is no such thing as free trade. It doesn't exist. Maybe we'd have
free trade if the US had no labor laws, no environmental protections, and
completed it's move towards a police state. Then, maybe we'd be on an
even footing with china and then it would be 'free trade'. Do you really
want to live where you can see the air? Where it is so thick and brown
that it's as if you could cut it with a knife?

Free trade is where we don't listen to guys like you and try to lock
out foreign competition on the faulty notion that everyone is going to
be better off.

Again, strawmen. I never stated anything of the sort. Free trade doesn't
exist. Plain and simple. US and China trade is not free, fair, or
anything else of the sort. That's a fact. It doesn't mean I want to lock
out oreign competition or anything else, it's a fact, there is no such
thing as free trade. Tarrifs, local laws, etc and so forth exist all over
the world. There is no such thing as free trade.

Or do you feel it's perfectally ok that people live in such sesspools
working more or less as company slaves under an oppressive police state
that controls access to information and forbids things like freedom
speech to make you cheap goods?

I'm the one for FREEDOM, including trade.

You're arguing pro-china. China is an oppressive modern police state
where there is no such thing as conflict of interest. Where corporate
CEO, government offical, military general, and high ranking party member
can be all the same guy.

Your the one that find
something wrong with folks in China providing some products which we
get an good prices and that help them improve their lives by working up
the economic ladder.

Another strawman.

I find a problem with US corporations making everything in china for
sale in the USA. I have a problem when China is being used to drive down
the wages and crush the middle class of the USA. I have a problem with
putting a great deal of economic power over the USA in the hands of an
oppressive police state. I have a problem with that US corporations have
no problem spewing pollution in china when they know better.

According to you, because you focus only on the negatives. There are
many US companies that lead the world today today in many areas. Would
you rather have MSFT, INTC, Boeing, etc, or a country with unskilled
laborers making shirts?

You don't seem to grasp the whole picture. Guess who's going to be
building Airbus aircraft? Guess... you think any job is safe? You're
deluding yourself. It's not just no-skill low-skill or 'dirty-jobs' that
are going to china. In fact, with the manufactruring now much of the
engineering is going too...

Oh no! Airbus! My God, more boogey men! Airbus seems to have
their tits in the wringer at the moment with the A380, don't they?
Sure they are competition, but that's good for everyone. If Boeing
had no competition, we's still be flying around in planes that cost
more, used more gas, were not as safe or comfortable, etc. And Airbus
is only using China for some components, not the whole plane. Don't
worry, being Western Europe based, Airbus is gonna be run a lot closer
to your ideas of how to protect workers and better things than here in
the US.

Nice avoidance of the fact that your 'the good jobs stay here' argument
just got shreadded. How is that argument going to hold up when Boeing, to
compete with Airbus moves their production to China? It isn't. Nobody, no
job is safe. Do you think you can live here in the USA on the wages of a
worker in China? Why don't you try that, since you're all into
competition and thinking it's all fair. You should undercut the chinese
guy that does the same thing you do, right? Think you can live on that?

The knowledge drain from the US to China has been monumental as well. US
company starts manufacturing over there, next thing they know they have a
new competitor using everything they learned from the US company.

Oh! Yes, better to hide everything and erect obstacles to trade and
knowledge.

Strawman.

I don't suppose we learned anything about cost effective
manufacturing and quality from Japan either, did we?

Japanese quality and manufacturing concepts that they used effectively
came in large part from an american US corporations laughed at and
wouldn't listen to. Your ignorance is astounding.

Guess who benefits
from this in the long term? China will be the super power and the US will
in many respects be third worlded. Or do you think it is a good thing to
have people in the USA compete for jobs with china?

What works is a free economy.

There is no such thing. Then again you probably don't know about China's
local content laws either. If a given percentage of your product isn't
made in China you will suffer high tariffs selling it in China. Maybe in
the name of a 'free economy' the US can be like China in that respect?


I thought as much... no response. You didn't know about the local content
laws in China did you? No free trade.

Japan was never a boogey man. That is a false argument, Japan doesn't use
slave labor, Japan has been an industrialized nation since before world
war two, it has labor and environmental protections. It's companies
competed with US companies on a more or less even footing. What is going
on with China is that US companies are relocating their manufacturing to
a police state where it can pay people next to nothing. That's
considerably different and only those people with no grasp of the
realities of the situation make such a comparison.

Typical elitist attitude. You know what's best for everyone.

Strawman.

Because someone makes a fraction of the wages somewhere else, we should
lock them out, so they go unemployed and hungry instead.

Strawman.

These people
want to work and are happy with the wages.

Now that's elitiest...

Over time, they lift
themselves up the economic scale, just as anyone who wants to can here
in the US. Look as Shanghei. Accoridng to you, it should be a slum.

Strawman.

If we're failing anywhere, it's because we have a segment of the
population that doesn't get educated, doesn't even finish high school.
The solution to that is to work on that problem, not try to compete in
making shirts or baskets on the theory that the solution is to have
more no skills jobs to compete with foreign low cost labor.

Again you have no grasp of the situation. It's not just such things being
done in China. I suggest you start paying closer attention to things
around you. Maybe even check the tag on the back of your computer
monitor.

I need to pay attention? You're the one relying on personal opinion
instead of real economic numbers.

Real economic numbers? US federal government debt. US federal government
future liabilities. Weak dollar. T-Bills and dollars held by China. Trade
deficits. Those are real economic numbers. They point to a long term
problem. One you'd ignore because the manipulated political type numbers
of the short term look good to you.

You sound like the typical whacko
leftist, running around saying the economy is terrible, worst it's been
since the great depression and basing it on what you know to be,
instead of any real data.

Again, strawman. I am saying the future economy might make the great
depression look easy unless something is done today to improve the long
term economic numbers.

You're quite clearly a be happy and spend today, who cares about tomorrow
type.

Brent P wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
Brent P wrote:

Why don't you pay attention to people from the World Bank, Federal
Reserve, etc and so on if you don't believe me?

It's not clear what
exact "$9 trillion in debt you are referring to." If it's the US govt
debt, an absolute number doesn't mean much by itself.

Well if you want to play games with the currancy.

See, again you show your lack of grasp of any real economic data.

You're not getting it....

The
issue of what debt you are referring to has nothing to do with playing
games with currency.

You just stated that the number is meaningless, and in the sense that the
currancy is not related to anything real, you're correct. Any number of
games can be played with it.


The number is not meaningless. It's very meaningful if used and
compared with other relevant economic statistics, like the size of the
economy. What's the problem with defining what "debt" you are
referring to? Better to rail against mysterious, vagues and evil
debt, I guess.



It's the question of what debt you are referring
to. Did you mean US govt debt? US govt debt owned by foreigners?
Consumer debt?

The 9 trillion figure is federal government debt. If you had half the
clue you claim to have you would have known that.

Excuse me. You didn't specify which type "debt" you were referring
to. I'm supposed to be a mind reader now too? And in the context of
your complaining about foreign competition, it's not unreasonable to
think you might be bitching about some number related foreign debt.
Plus, last time I checked the US debt was actually slightly below $9
Bil.




Ask grandpa what
he paid for his first house. Does that mean everyone who pays 10X that
for a house today is doing something wrong? If you look at govt debt
as a percentage of GDP, today it's about the same as it was in the mid
90's and also about the same as it was in the mid 50's. During WWII,
it was twice as high. We survived that, didn't we?

So you want to make the debt smaller by inflating the currancy.

No, I never said that. Any economist will tell you that in free
markets, some small level of price inflation is desirable. And that
means unless you compare debt in the 50's to the size of the economy
then, or some other data that factors in inflation, it's meaningless.

What I responded to, is you writing 'don't worry about the debt, it will
appear much smaller in the future'.

Wrong, never said that. I said the national debt, which you brought
up, is about the same in size relative to the economy that it was in
the 90s or mid 50's.



The only way that happens is when the
dollar buys less, inflation. Percentage of GNP is figures don't lie but
liars figure sort of thing. Just like your other figures, they are
manufactured and calculated in such a way as to get you not to worry.

Yeah, right. BTW, it's been GDP that everyone had used for decades
now. But I you wouldn't know that, cause you prefer to go by opinion,
rather than actual real data. Curse the darkness instead of lighting a
candle.

The
problem is there isn't enough revenue for the US federal government to
pay the debt and the US government isn't slowing down spending to pay it
back either. You cannot grow debt forever without consquences even if the
GNP keeps growing.

Wrong. It can go on forever as long as the govt can meet the interest
obligations on it's bonds. Back to the house example. I can go from
a $50K house, to a $100K house, to a $500K house as long as I have the
income to meet it. Same with the govt, which is why the size of the
economy is directly relevant.

And what about the bond market? You have the brightest minds in the
financial community, constantly valuing US debt, realtime, in the
market. Everyone, from major US institutions, to foreign central banks
own US Bonds. If the US is so loaded with debt and unable to meet
it's committments, it's rather peculiar that the long bond is at 6%
interest, instead of 16%, which it was in 1980, when total govt debt
was much less. Did everyone just become stupid?




That appears to be what is being done.

No, because last time I checked, inflation was in control and around
3%, which is a far cry from when it was triple that in the 70's. Or
the double digit levels of many of the countries around the world that
practice your ideas and try to have the govt pursue a trade policy of
blocking imports.

The Federal reserve has been growing the money supply and has now made
the figures there on secret.



Oh, really? Now all the basic monetary figures are a secret? LOL
If they did this, wall street would go nuts and the bond market, who
knows a whole hell of a lot more than you, would tank. Reference
please, and make sure it's not some kook website. I want a ref from
CNN, NY Times, WSJ, someone credible.



A growing supply of dollars means a weaker
dollar. Again, you seem way too focused on the here and now. Short term
thinking. What is being done is short term... the long term is being
neglected for the short. You seem to understand this as you avoid any
discussion of the long term issues. You keep focusing on the government's
'feel good and go to sleep' figures for the moment.


I've been hearing kooks like you predict the end of the world because
of a whole host of narrowly selected statistics for decades. And I;'m
not focused on the here and now. I showed you that govt debt, which
you brought into the discussion of foreign goods, is the same relative
to the economy today as it was in the mid 50's. and in the 90's.
That;s short term?




Sure, the only problem is that it wipes
out the savings, the hard earned money of the people. If you don't think
that has consquences you're deluding yourself. Or maybe you just don't
care because you have no savings?

Again, check the facts before you jump to wild end of the world
predictions. Inflation is at 3%, well within the range that is
recognized as ideal. The period when savings were being eaten away by
inflation was the 70's and that's long gone.

So you're also a member of the 'it can't happen again crowd'. I am sure
people said similiar in the 1960s.... and then came the 70s and stagflation.

Of course it can happen again. Soon as we start trying to manage the
economy, adopt trade policies to try to protect ourselves from the real
world, have income tax rates at 70%, put a heafty extra tax on oil, and
have a FED that spewing out money, without regard to inflation, to try
to hide the effects of the above and keep the economy going.





Just look in the
newspaper and you will find all the banks offering savings alternatives
of 5+%. With inflation at 3%, that 's a positive return, last time I
checked. But, then I check, instead of making stuff up.

Once again you refuse to look at the long term. The US is not making
things others want. Dollars are piling up overseas.

Dollars aren't piling up. They are being reinvested here because this
country and our economy are very attractive investment opportunities.
And those investments create jobs.



Of course it benefits them in the long term, by low income people being
able to conitnue to buy good cheaply. That continues on.

But work as slaves... like in china.

Free markets benefit all.

It isn't a free market.

Those Chinese are happy to work and get the wages they get.

So says the slave master.

Excuse me, you're the one trying to tell others what to do, not me. I
think the Chinese have every right to a job of their choice.




Over time, they improve themselves, save, get better
jobs and move up the economic ladder.

They don't need to ruin the US manufacturing base to do so. China is a
large nation that could bring itself up on it's internal markets _ALONE_.

And if they could, they should do this instead of free trade, why?
Because you say so?



It's exactly what's happening
in China if you look at the real facts. Look at Shanhei. It's a
booming city.

I see a government that takes people's land and makes them homeless. Land
they've had in their families for centuries and then gives it to
corporate interests to profit from. It's tyranny. And now we have that
here in the USA given the New London decision.

Yeah, more doom and gloom that shows how far out of touch with reality
you are. Now you want to start ranting about emminent domain. I see
you don;'t want to talk about Shanghei.




Or look how the boogey men of past have improved their
countries, ie Japan, China. Compare that to countries that have
tried to manage trade the most, and they have failed miserably.

As I pointed out to you before, there is no comparison between Japan and
China. It's not the same on any level.


Yes, you're right. China is now at the point where Japan was in the
60's or Korea in the 80s.



What happens to those chinese goods
once your plan to inflate the currancy to solve the US debt problem is
put into action?

Never said that was my plan. All I said is you have to put any
economic number in perspective. To rail about some debt number
without comparing it to anything else, like the SIZE OF THE ECONOMY,
renders it just about meaningless. As an example of that, I gave you
the case of grandpa's house, but that went right over your head.

No, you just didn't understand the implications of what you stated. Do
you run your personal finances ever increasing your debt load as your
income increases? Pretty stupid way to run one's finances don't you
agree?

No, I don't agree. If you look at any countries that are advancing,
you will see a steady increase in total debt along with income, GDP,
wages, etc. It's a great sign of economic progress.



Always growing one's debt load, keeping it maxed out? It's a
stupid way to run personal finances and even worse when a government's
finances are run that way.

Well, it;s not maxed out, as I told you debt as a percentage of GDP was
twice what it is today during WWII. Now, am I in favor of reducing
it? Sure, whenever they're ready to reduce the growth of federal
spending.



Plus that federal debt doesn't even include the future liabilities that
there is no projected funding for.

But if you don't want to listen to me about the danger of economic
collaspe, maybe you'll listen to this guy:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/1...obel_2001.html

I mean he's only been chief economist for the world bank and has a nobel
prize in the field.... and he's not agreeing with you...

I don;t see anywhere that he said free trade is bad, or that we need to
do something radical to compete with China. Plus, this is a classic
and shows where he's coming from:

Nice strawman. I haven't argued free trade is bad....

Not a strawman, I was just trying to figure out what the economist you
referenced has to do with anything under discussion here.



So, your economist has egg all over his face.

You don't get it and never will. Why don't you do some further poking
around?

You provide a reference to a nice little article from 5 years ago about
an economist who won the Nobel prize and I'm supposed to do the poking
around to figure out what the hell the relevance is? LOL.


And BTW, your neo-con spin job doesn't cut it either.


Since when is it neo-con spin to point out that the tax cuts worked and
the economy is doing nicely? Cutting taxes in times of recession was
accepted as core liberal Keynsian economic fact for most of the last
century. It apparently was accepted and worked when JFK did it. But
now, for some peculiar reason, it's now a bad idea. I guess Bush
should have raised taxes, so we could have had plunged the economy into
the calamity you desperatley want.




And do you think you'd find them at those prices if you eliminated
foreign competition?

Strawman.

Economic fact. Take an economics course or read a magazine.

I never made any such argument. That's why it's a strawman. Grow a clue!

I don't think you understand the long term game.

I don't think you understand economics, the great benefit of free
trade, and the huge problems that get caused when you try to have govt
correct perceived imperfections in free markets. Free markets aren't
perfect. Sometimes they are even brutal. But they are far better to
solutions of protectionism, that result in govt management of the
economy and trade wars.

There is no such thing as free trade. It doesn't exist. Maybe we'd have
free trade if the US had no labor laws, no environmental protections, and
completed it's move towards a police state. Then, maybe we'd be on an
even footing with china and then it would be 'free trade'. Do you really
want to live where you can see the air? Where it is so thick and brown
that it's as if you could cut it with a knife?

Free trade is where we don't listen to guys like you and try to lock
out foreign competition on the faulty notion that everyone is going to
be better off.

Again, strawmen. I never stated anything of the sort. Free trade doesn't
exist. Plain and simple. US and China trade is not free, fair, or
anything else of the sort. That's a fact. It doesn't mean I want to lock
out oreign competition or anything else, it's a fact, there is no such
thing as free trade. Tarrifs, local laws, etc and so forth exist all over
the world. There is no such thing as free trade.

Now you want to argue fine points of definition? Seems Bush41,
Clinton, Congress and most economists understand it well enough though.
They all supported NAFTA.



Or do you feel it's perfectally ok that people live in such sesspools
working more or less as company slaves under an oppressive police state
that controls access to information and forbids things like freedom
speech to make you cheap goods?

I'm the one for FREEDOM, including trade.

You're arguing pro-china. China is an oppressive modern police state
where there is no such thing as conflict of interest. Where corporate
CEO, government offical, military general, and high ranking party member
can be all the same guy.

I'm not pro China. I'm pro free trade and recognize that there are
huge benefits from it. And I think I entered this thread by saying
that low cost imports are not all bad. You have to look at both sides
of the ledger. They provide low cost products that everyone,
including and maybe especially, the lower income receive benefit from.
If a low income family can buy a foreign product cheaply, that is a
positive. Without foreign competition, inflation would be higher and
we would have crappy products. Again,. the classic is the US auto
industry. If they did not have oreign competition, we would still be
buying crappy cars.





Your the one that find
something wrong with folks in China providing some products which we
get an good prices and that help them improve their lives by working up
the economic ladder.

Another strawman.

That seems to be your favorite word, instead of any rational argument,
backed by facts. And it's not a "strawman". This happened in Japan,
Korea, Singapore.... Try reading.



I find a problem with US corporations making everything in china for
sale in the USA. I have a problem when China is being used to drive down
the wages and crush the middle class of the USA.

Yeah, I'm sure they all feel crushed when they buy a fan made in China
for $15, instead of one made here for $40.


I have a problem with
putting a great deal of economic power over the USA in the hands of an
oppressive police state. I have a problem with that US corporations have
no problem spewing pollution in china when they know better.


The real question is, other than complaining about, what exactly do you
want to do about it?



According to you, because you focus only on the negatives. There are
many US companies that lead the world today today in many areas. Would
you rather have MSFT, INTC, Boeing, etc, or a country with unskilled
laborers making shirts?

You don't seem to grasp the whole picture. Guess who's going to be
building Airbus aircraft? Guess... you think any job is safe? You're
deluding yourself. It's not just no-skill low-skill or 'dirty-jobs' that
are going to china. In fact, with the manufactruring now much of the
engineering is going too...

Oh no! Airbus! My God, more boogey men! Airbus seems to have
their tits in the wringer at the moment with the A380, don't they?
Sure they are competition, but that's good for everyone. If Boeing
had no competition, we's still be flying around in planes that cost
more, used more gas, were not as safe or comfortable, etc. And Airbus
is only using China for some components, not the whole plane. Don't
worry, being Western Europe based, Airbus is gonna be run a lot closer
to your ideas of how to protect workers and better things than here in
the US.

Nice avoidance of the fact that your 'the good jobs stay here' argument
just got shreadded.

No, it didn;t get shredded at all. Last time I checked Airbus is a
European consortium, not a US conpany.



How is that argument going to hold up when Boeing, to
compete with Airbus moves their production to China? It isn't. Nobody, no
job is safe.

Wow, no job is safe? You really think so? Welcome to the real
world.


Do you think you can live here in the USA on the wages of a
worker in China? Why don't you try that, since you're all into
competition and thinking it's all fair. You should undercut the chinese
guy that does the same thing you do, right? Think you can live on that?

Why should I or anyone else labor away to make a fan or a shirt, when
there are far better jobs and opportunities available for anyone that
cares to apply themselves?



The knowledge drain from the US to China has been monumental as well. US
company starts manufacturing over there, next thing they know they have a
new competitor using everything they learned from the US company.

Oh! Yes, better to hide everything and erect obstacles to trade and
knowledge.

Strawman.

There you go again!



I don't suppose we learned anything about cost effective
manufacturing and quality from Japan either, did we?

Japanese quality and manufacturing concepts that they used effectively
came in large part from an american US corporations laughed at and
wouldn't listen to. Your ignorance is astounding.

My ignorance? "came in large part from an american US corporations",
what the hell does that mean? LOL



Guess who benefits
from this in the long term? China will be the super power and the US will
in many respects be third worlded. Or do you think it is a good thing to
have people in the USA compete for jobs with china?

What works is a free economy.

There is no such thing. Then again you probably don't know about China's
local content laws either. If a given percentage of your product isn't
made in China you will suffer high tariffs selling it in China. Maybe in
the name of a 'free economy' the US can be like China in that respect?


I thought as much... no response. You didn't know about the local content
laws in China did you? No free trade.

Japan was never a boogey man. That is a false argument, Japan doesn't use
slave labor, Japan has been an industrialized nation since before world
war two, it has labor and environmental protections. It's companies
competed with US companies on a more or less even footing. What is going
on with China is that US companies are relocating their manufacturing to
a police state where it can pay people next to nothing. That's
considerably different and only those people with no grasp of the
realities of the situation make such a comparison.

Typical elitist attitude. You know what's best for everyone.

Strawman.

Because someone makes a fraction of the wages somewhere else, we should
lock them out, so they go unemployed and hungry instead.

Strawman.

These people
want to work and are happy with the wages.

Now that's elitiest...

Over time, they lift
themselves up the economic scale, just as anyone who wants to can here
in the US. Look as Shanghei. Accoridng to you, it should be a slum.

Strawman.

If we're failing anywhere, it's because we have a segment of the
population that doesn't get educated, doesn't even finish high school.
The solution to that is to work on that problem, not try to compete in
making shirts or baskets on the theory that the solution is to have
more no skills jobs to compete with foreign low cost labor.

Again you have no grasp of the situation. It's not just such things being
done in China. I suggest you start paying closer attention to things
around you. Maybe even check the tag on the back of your computer
monitor.

I need to pay attention? You're the one relying on personal opinion
instead of real economic numbers.

Real economic numbers? US federal government debt. US federal government
future liabilities. Weak dollar. T-Bills and dollars held by China. Trade
deficits. Those are real economic numbers. They point to a long term
problem. One you'd ignore because the manipulated political type numbers
of the short term look good to you.

Spouting out the above, without a chart, historical trends, comparing
it to the size of the economy, or anything else proves what? It's
like saying company X made 1 Billion in profit last year. Without
comparing it to their sales, other similar companies, etc, it doesn;'t
say much at all.


You sound like the typical whacko
leftist, running around saying the economy is terrible, worst it's been
since the great depression and basing it on what you know to be,
instead of any real data.

Again, strawman. I am saying the future economy might make the great
depression look easy unless something is done today to improve the long
term economic numbers.

You're quite clearly a be happy and spend today, who cares about tomorrow
type.


And you're a guy who when presented with fact, says "Strawman!" World
still sucks!

In article . com, wrote:

You just stated that the number is meaningless, and in the sense that the
currancy is not related to anything real, you're correct. Any number of
games can be played with it.

The number is not meaningless. It's very meaningful if used and
compared with other relevant economic statistics, like the size of the
economy.

Comparing debt to the size of the economy is just a feel good for now
measure like you getting a raise in salary and then using that to borrow
more money so you can have a new bass boat when you were at your debt
limit prior to the raise. It's the ability to pay the debt that counts.
Where is the US federal government's ability to pay the debt? Or do you
think that the holders of the debt never want to be paid? Or that
interest isn't consuming ever greater percentages of revenue?

What's the problem with defining what "debt" you are
referring to? Better to rail against mysterious, vagues and evil
debt, I guess.

It's only mysterous to someone who doesn't have a clue.

The 9 trillion figure is federal government debt. If you had half the
clue you claim to have you would have known that.

Excuse me. You didn't specify which type "debt" you were referring
to. I'm supposed to be a mind reader now too?

I expect you to know some of the basics.

And in the context of
your complaining about foreign competition,

I haven't. Stop introducing strawmen.

What I responded to, is you writing 'don't worry about the debt, it will
appear much smaller in the future'.

Wrong, never said that.

Then what exactly were you trying to say?

I said the national debt, which you brought
up, is about the same in size relative to the economy that it was in
the 90s or mid 50's.

So when you earn more, do you go out and borrow more? This way you stay up
to your eyeballs in debt? Do you do that personally? Of course you'll say
you won't. Because it would be stupid to do that. Yet, you fully endorse
the US government running it's finances that way.

The only way that happens is when the
dollar buys less, inflation. Percentage of GNP is figures don't lie but
liars figure sort of thing. Just like your other figures, they are
manufactured and calculated in such a way as to get you not to worry.

Yeah, right. BTW, it's been GDP that everyone had used for decades
now. But I you wouldn't know that, cause you prefer to go by opinion,
rather than actual real data. Curse the darkness instead of lighting a
candle.

Actually the percentage of GDP figure for debt wasn't used to calm
the people until rather recently. But all that means in the end is
staying up one's eyeballs in debt. Shouldn't this GDP growth and revenue
growth been used to pay off the existing debt instead of being used to
qualify for more debt? You're acting like the US federal government
should operate like the guy who can barely make is car payment and so
when he gets a raise he gets a newer more expensive car so he can still
just barely make his car payment each month.

That's long term foolishness. But it looks good in the short term.

The
problem is there isn't enough revenue for the US federal government to
pay the debt and the US government isn't slowing down spending to pay it
back either. You cannot grow debt forever without consquences even if the
GNP keeps growing.

Wrong. It can go on forever as long as the govt can meet the interest
obligations on it's bonds. Back to the house example. I can go from
a $50K house, to a $100K house, to a $500K house as long as I have the
income to meet it. Same with the govt, which is why the size of the
economy is directly relevant.

The interest only loan. Don't you see how that impodes? Interest only
loans are something that morons and suckers get. Because the lender knows
that it will implode. The lender makes a ton of cash and gets the
property!

That's where the US government will end up. That is unless we start
paying a whole lot more (like most of our incomes) in income taxes. You
do know that's what the income tax pays don't you? The interest on the
debt.

And what about the bond market? You have the brightest minds in the
financial community, constantly valuing US debt, realtime, in the
market. Everyone, from major US institutions, to foreign central banks
own US Bonds. If the US is so loaded with debt and unable to meet
it's committments, it's rather peculiar that the long bond is at 6%
interest, instead of 16%, which it was in 1980, when total govt debt
was much less. Did everyone just become stupid?

And what happens if interest rates rise? Once again, you have no thought
of tommorow just today. Are you planing on being dead in the next two
years? I'm not, that's why I'm concerned about the government spending
like a drunken sailor and borrowing like a shop-a-holic with a huge house
and H1 hummer to pay for.

The Federal reserve has been growing the money supply and has now made
the figures there on secret.

Oh, really? Now all the basic monetary figures are a secret?

Strawman. Didn't say 'all'.

LOL
If they did this, wall street would go nuts and the bond market, who
knows a whole hell of a lot more than you, would tank. Reference
please, and make sure it's not some kook website. I want a ref from
CNN, NY Times, WSJ, someone credible.

The M3 Money supply data is no longer released. Try and keep up with
things. For a cite, will the federal reserve press relase do? Horse's mouth.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/discm3.htm

Is it important? Many think so...

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...tionGauge.aspx

A growing supply of dollars means a weaker
dollar. Again, you seem way too focused on the here and now. Short term
thinking. What is being done is short term... the long term is being
neglected for the short. You seem to understand this as you avoid any
discussion of the long term issues. You keep focusing on the government's
'feel good and go to sleep' figures for the moment.

I've been hearing kooks like you predict the end of the world because
of a whole host of narrowly selected statistics for decades.

Projection.

And I;'m
not focused on the here and now. I showed you that govt debt, which
you brought into the discussion of foreign goods, is the same relative
to the economy today as it was in the mid 50's. and in the 90's.
That;s short term?

All you have stated as that the binging continues. At some point the
party is over. Or do you keep yourself at maximum debt load to your
income? If you don't do it personally, why not?

Again, check the facts before you jump to wild end of the world
predictions. Inflation is at 3%, well within the range that is
recognized as ideal. The period when savings were being eaten away by
inflation was the 70's and that's long gone.

So you're also a member of the 'it can't happen again crowd'. I am sure
people said similiar in the 1960s.... and then came the 70s and stagflation.

Of course it can happen again. Soon as we start trying to manage the
economy, adopt trade policies to try to protect ourselves from the real
world, have income tax rates at 70%, put a heafty extra tax on oil, and
have a FED that spewing out money, without regard to inflation, to try
to hide the effects of the above and keep the economy going.

Gee... that's just what it seems the fed is doing when it stopped
publishing the M3.

Just look in the
newspaper and you will find all the banks offering savings alternatives
of 5+%. With inflation at 3%, that 's a positive return, last time I
checked. But, then I check, instead of making stuff up.

Once again you refuse to look at the long term. The US is not making
things others want. Dollars are piling up overseas.

Dollars aren't piling up.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/...fx3147533.html

"China foreign exchange reserves top 1 trln usd"

That's called piling up to everyone but the dimwitted.

They are being reinvested here because this
country and our economy are very attractive investment opportunities.
And those investments create jobs.

Yeah.. and we'll all pay to drive on roads owned by foreign corporations!
Eventually there won't be anything left to sell.

Over time, they improve themselves, save, get better
jobs and move up the economic ladder.

They don't need to ruin the US manufacturing base to do so. China is a
large nation that could bring itself up on it's internal markets _ALONE_.

And if they could, they should do this instead of free trade, why?
Because you say so?

There is no free trade with china. China has domestic content laws. Try
and sell your made-in-USA widgets there and see how much tarrif is
slapped on them.

It's exactly what's happening
in China if you look at the real facts. Look at Shanhei. It's a
booming city.

I see a government that takes people's land and makes them homeless. Land
they've had in their families for centuries and then gives it to
corporate interests to profit from. It's tyranny. And now we have that
here in the USA given the New London decision.

Yeah, more doom and gloom that shows how far out of touch with reality
you are. Now you want to start ranting about emminent domain. I see
you don;'t want to talk about Shanghei.

I am sorry you are ignorant about how things work in China. You might
want to come up to speed on that.

Or look how the boogey men of past have improved their
countries, ie Japan, China. Compare that to countries that have
tried to manage trade the most, and they have failed miserably.

As I pointed out to you before, there is no comparison between Japan and
China. It's not the same on any level.

Yes, you're right. China is now at the point where Japan was in the
60's or Korea in the 80s.

You don't get it and never will. Or you do and want to remain ignorant.
In any case, the Japanese worker and US worker were not in wage
competition with each other. It was the Japanese company vs. the US
company. Both nations having significant labor and environmental
protections. A best-product-wins competition as it should be, a great
deal closer to the free/fair trade ideal. The US worker and the Chinese
worker are in wage competition with each other. If the US worker isn't
cheap enough the US company he works for will shut down the factory and
open a new one in China. Or bring in illegal aliens from Mexico to
replace him.

Never said that was my plan. All I said is you have to put any
economic number in perspective. To rail about some debt number
without comparing it to anything else, like the SIZE OF THE ECONOMY,
renders it just about meaningless. As an example of that, I gave you
the case of grandpa's house, but that went right over your head.

No, you just didn't understand the implications of what you stated. Do
you run your personal finances ever increasing your debt load as your
income increases? Pretty stupid way to run one's finances don't you
agree?

No, I don't agree. If you look at any countries that are advancing,
you will see a steady increase in total debt along with income, GDP,
wages, etc. It's a great sign of economic progress.

So you're up to your eyeballs in debt personally and when you get a raise
you borrow more money to get a nicer car or whatever?

Gee... what happens when hard times come and you end up out of work? You're
****ed. That's what will happen to the USA if hard times come... we'll
all be ****ed. That's why it's a poor way to run one's finances.


Always growing one's debt load, keeping it maxed out? It's a
stupid way to run personal finances and even worse when a government's
finances are run that way.

Well, it;s not maxed out, as I told you debt as a percentage of GDP was
twice what it is today during WWII. Now, am I in favor of reducing
it? Sure, whenever they're ready to reduce the growth of federal
spending.

During WW2... nice extreme example. However GDP isn't as important as the
revenue the government takes in.... take a look to see where the income
tax goes....

Plus that federal debt doesn't even include the future liabilities that
there is no projected funding for.

Yeah... you ignore that... any reasonable person doing the finances would
consider such things....

Nice strawman. I haven't argued free trade is bad....

Not a strawman, I was just trying to figure out what the economist you
referenced has to do with anything under discussion here.

Um no you weren't. You were assigning an argument to me as usual.

You provide a reference to a nice little article from 5 years ago about
an economist who won the Nobel prize and I'm supposed to do the poking
around to figure out what the hell the relevance is? LOL.

Yes, you've made it clear you need everything spoon fed to you since
your arugments thus far have been a regurgitation of what Rush Limbaugh
says.

Since when is it neo-con spin to point out that the tax cuts worked and
the economy is doing nicely? Cutting taxes in times of recession was
accepted as core liberal Keynsian economic fact for most of the last
century. It apparently was accepted and worked when JFK did it. But
now, for some peculiar reason, it's now a bad idea. I guess Bush
should have raised taxes, so we could have had plunged the economy into
the calamity you desperatley want.

It is when your arguments sound like the Rush Limbaugh show. You keep
harping on the same things and have the view that long term mismanagement
is fine.

Free trade is where we don't listen to guys like you and try to lock
out foreign competition on the faulty notion that everyone is going to
be better off.

Again, strawmen. I never stated anything of the sort. Free trade doesn't
exist. Plain and simple. US and China trade is not free, fair, or
anything else of the sort. That's a fact. It doesn't mean I want to lock
out oreign competition or anything else, it's a fact, there is no such
thing as free trade. Tarrifs, local laws, etc and so forth exist all over
the world. There is no such thing as free trade.

Now you want to argue fine points of definition? Seems Bush41,
Clinton, Congress and most economists understand it well enough though.
They all supported NAFTA.

Not my fault you fall for image.

I'm the one for FREEDOM, including trade.

You're arguing pro-china. China is an oppressive modern police state
where there is no such thing as conflict of interest. Where corporate
CEO, government offical, military general, and high ranking party member
can be all the same guy.

I'm not pro China. I'm pro free trade and recognize that there are
huge benefits from it.

There is no free trade with china. Try selling US made widgets there.

And I think I entered this thread by saying
that low cost imports are not all bad. You have to look at both sides
of the ledger. They provide low cost products that everyone,
including and maybe especially, the lower income receive benefit from.

Yeah, his job is overseas... he wasn't low income before... but now he
can buy the crap with his unemployment check!

If a low income family can buy a foreign product cheaply, that is a
positive. Without foreign competition, inflation would be higher and
we would have crappy products. Again,. the classic is the US auto
industry. If they did not have oreign competition, we would still be
buying crappy cars.

Strawman. There is foreign competition and then there is 'free trade'.
There is no free trade with China. It's wage competition between the US
worker and the Chinese worker. Not competition in the free market.

Your the one that find
something wrong with folks in China providing some products which we
get an good prices and that help them improve their lives by working up
the economic ladder.

Another strawman.

That seems to be your favorite word, instead of any rational argument,
backed by facts. And it's not a "strawman". This happened in Japan,
Korea, Singapore.... Try reading.

You keep assigning arguments to me then knocking them down. I call it
what it is. Japan was an industrialized nation before WW2. US companies
did not relocate factories in mass to Korea. South Korea isn't operated
like China either. You don't understand the fundamental differences
between the nations and how you're attempt to draw a parallel is in error.

I find a problem with US corporations making everything in china for
sale in the USA. I have a problem when China is being used to drive down
the wages and crush the middle class of the USA.

Yeah, I'm sure they all feel crushed when they buy a fan made in China
for $15, instead of one made here for $40.

No jobs, POS $15 fan that falls apart in a few months vs. jobs and a $40 fan
that lasts decades. hmm...


I have a problem with
putting a great deal of economic power over the USA in the hands of an
oppressive police state. I have a problem with that US corporations have
no problem spewing pollution in china when they know better.

The real question is, other than complaining about, what exactly do you
want to do about it?

The US federal government needs to drastically cut back spending. The
chinese currancy needs to float. their tarriffs need to be removed or
the US should enact similiar domestic content laws in response. That
would be a good start.

Nice avoidance of the fact that your 'the good jobs stay here' argument
just got shreadded.

No, it didn;t get shredded at all. Last time I checked Airbus is a
European consortium, not a US conpany.

Guess you don't know who boeing's major competition is.

How is that argument going to hold up when Boeing, to
compete with Airbus moves their production to China? It isn't. Nobody, no
job is safe.

Wow, no job is safe? You really think so? Welcome to the real
world.

Especially when 'free trade' advocates like yourself consider free trade
the ability to drive down wages and one way trade barriers.

Do you think you can live here in the USA on the wages of a
worker in China? Why don't you try that, since you're all into
competition and thinking it's all fair. You should undercut the chinese
guy that does the same thing you do, right? Think you can live on that?

Why should I or anyone else labor away to make a fan or a shirt, when
there are far better jobs and opportunities available for anyone that
cares to apply themselves?

Doing what you do today in the USA but earning the typical salary for
that function in China. Guess reading is a problem for you. Can you
compete with the Chinese guy doing your job in china?

Whatever it is you do for living, whatever it is you want to do, there's
a guy in China who can do it for less than you can because he can live on
far less than you can and with far less than you do.

Japanese quality and manufacturing concepts that they used effectively
came in large part from an american US corporations laughed at and
wouldn't listen to. Your ignorance is astounding.

My ignorance? "came in large part from an american US corporations",
what the hell does that mean? LOL

Read the whole thing. It seems now you're either a total moron or just
playing usenet games. Read the whole sentance rather than complaining
that a segment of a sentance doesn't make sense. OF course it doesn't.
Then again, you did that on purpose.

Real economic numbers? US federal government debt. US federal government
future liabilities. Weak dollar. T-Bills and dollars held by China. Trade
deficits. Those are real economic numbers. They point to a long term
problem. One you'd ignore because the manipulated political type numbers
of the short term look good to you.

Spouting out the above, without a chart, historical trends, comparing
it to the size of the economy, or anything else proves what? It's
like saying company X made 1 Billion in profit last year. Without
comparing it to their sales, other similar companies, etc, it doesn;'t
say much at all.

Oh I forgot... you need everything spoon fed to you. Why don't you go
listen to Limbaugh some more?

You're quite clearly a be happy and spend today, who cares about tomorrow
type.

And you're a guy who when presented with fact, says "Strawman!" World
still sucks!

You make up arguments for me, those are strawmen, not facts.

wrote:


Economic fact. Take an economics course or read a magazine.


Hey- quit stealing my lines!

trent

Brent P wrote:
In article . com, wrote:

You just stated that the number is meaningless, and in the sense that the
currancy is not related to anything real, you're correct. Any number of
games can be played with it.

The number is not meaningless. It's very meaningful if used and
compared with other relevant economic statistics, like the size of the
economy.

Comparing debt to the size of the economy is just a feel good for now
measure like you getting a raise in salary and then using that to borrow
more money so you can have a new bass boat when you were at your debt
limit prior to the raise. It's the ability to pay the debt that counts.


Oh, really? And when't the last time the US missed a debt payment?
Saying that comparing debt to the size of the economy is a feel good
measure, shows how out of touch with reality you are. Following that
logic, clowns like you could take the debt in 1800 and claim how much
larger it is today! We are all Doomed! When somone gives a
mortgage, they look at the credit worthiness of the borrower, dont'
they? Or do they say, gee, 30 years ago, you only made 20K, mortgage
denied!

In fact, this decision is made ever day in the market for govt bonds.
And institutions and foreign govts that know a hell of a lot more than
you, say that at 6%, the US is perfectly capable of meeting it's debt
obligations.



Where is the US federal government's ability to pay the debt?

It;s in the fact that the US has never failed to pay a debt and that
tax revenues are sufficient to support it. Are all the bond buyers
happy with 6% stupid and only you can see the light?


Or do you
think that the holders of the debt never want to be paid? Or that
interest isn't consuming ever greater percentages of revenue?

What's the problem with defining what "debt" you are
referring to? Better to rail against mysterious, vagues and evil
debt, I guess.

It's only mysterous to someone who doesn't have a clue.

The 9 trillion figure is federal government debt. If you had half the
clue you claim to have you would have known that.

Excuse me. You didn't specify which type "debt" you were referring
to. I'm supposed to be a mind reader now too?

I expect you to know some of the basics.


Yeah right, I should know exactly what debt somebody railing about
foreign trade competition means when they use the word debt.



And in the context of
your complaining about foreign competition,

I haven't. Stop introducing strawmen.

Whoop Whoop Strawman alert. Did they teach that word to you in school?
Losing a debate, have nothing to counter? Say STRAWMAN.



What I responded to, is you writing 'don't worry about the debt, it will
appear much smaller in the future'.

Wrong, never said that.

Then what exactly were you trying to say?

Here it is, one more time. Now pay attention, you can't possibly be
that stupid. You have to compare economic numbers like US debt, with
relevant contemporary numbers. And when you do that, the US debt is
half it's peak, and at levels similar to the 90s. Would it be nice if
it were lower? Sure. Is the US facing a big calamity? No. Your
vacuum logic is like asking someone what was your debt 40 years ago?
Oh, $5k? And now it's $150k? Oh my God, you're doomed! Never mind
that then he was earning $8k and now he's earning $150K. Or that he
has a house now worth 300K. Get it?






I said the national debt, which you brought
up, is about the same in size relative to the economy that it was in
the 90s or mid 50's.

So when you earn more, do you go out and borrow more?

Yes, if you bothered to look at economic statistics, you would see that
countries with higher per capita income have higher per capita debt.
This isn't rocket science. Who has a bigger mortgage, the guy making
$150K with a $500K house or the guy making $25K, whose a renter?



?This way you stay up
to your eyeballs in debt? Do you do that personally?

Not up to my eyeballs, no. Nor would I advise anyone to do that. But
over the last several decades, who has come out ahead? Anyone who
bought a home with a large, but realistic mortgage, is way ahead.


?Of course you'll say
you won't. Because it would be stupid to do that. Yet, you fully endorse
the US government running it's finances that way.

No, again, if you look at how big the economy is today, and tax
revenues that support the ability to pay, the US govt is doing fine.
Do you think you;'re smarter than all the bond traders in the world?
They think US bonds are a fair value at 6%. If they had any doubts
about the ability to be paid, credit worthiness, etc, those bonds would
be 3X that.




The only way that happens is when the
dollar buys less, inflation. Percentage of GNP is figures don't lie but
liars figure sort of thing. Just like your other figures, they are
manufactured and calculated in such a way as to get you not to worry.

Yeah, right. BTW, it's been GDP that everyone had used for decades
now. But I you wouldn't know that, cause you prefer to go by opinion,
rather than actual real data. Curse the darkness instead of lighting a
candle.

Actually the percentage of GDP figure for debt wasn't used to calm
the people until rather recently.

Maybe recent to you, but economists have used it all along.


But all that means in the end is
staying up one's eyeballs in debt.
Shouldn't this GDP growth and revenue
growth been used to pay off the existing debt instead of being used to
qualify for more debt? You're acting like the US federal government
should operate like the guy who can barely make is car payment and so
when he gets a raise he gets a newer more expensive car so he can still
just barely make his car payment each month.

That's long term foolishness. But it looks good in the short term.


No. Have you ever taken a course in micro or macro economics? Is
any major US corporation debt free? Of course not, the debt tends to
increase with the size of the company Look at any developing country.
the higher the std of living, the higher the debt. What you are
advocating is using what? The debt level of the US govt in 1776?
And it should be below that? Ridiculous to the max!



The
problem is there isn't enough revenue for the US federal government to
pay the debt and the US government isn't slowing down spending to pay it
back either. You cannot grow debt forever without consquences even if the
GNP keeps growing.

Wrong. It can go on forever as long as the govt can meet the interest
obligations on it's bonds. Back to the house example. I can go from
a $50K house, to a $100K house, to a $500K house as long as I have the
income to meet it. Same with the govt, which is why the size of the
economy is directly relevant.

The interest only loan. Don't you see how that impodes? Interest only
loans are something that morons and suckers get. Because the lender knows
that it will implode. The lender makes a ton of cash and gets the
property!

That's where the US government will end up. That is unless we start
paying a whole lot more (like most of our incomes) in income taxes. You
do know that's what the income tax pays don't you? The interest on the
debt.


And there we have it folks. According to dimwit here, unless we start
"paying a whole lot more (like most of our incomes) in income taxes",
the world is gonna end. Here;s a news flash: CUT SPENDING

As for paying the interest on the debt, yes income taxes pay that. And
they pay for social services, the folks who don't want to work,
defense, and a whole lot of other stuff. So? This is new?



And what about the bond market? You have the brightest minds in the
financial community, constantly valuing US debt, realtime, in the
market. Everyone, from major US institutions, to foreign central banks
own US Bonds. If the US is so loaded with debt and unable to meet
it's committments, it's rather peculiar that the long bond is at 6%
interest, instead of 16%, which it was in 1980, when total govt debt
was much less. Did everyone just become stupid?

And what happens if interest rates rise? Once again, you have no thought
of tommorow just today. Are you planing on being dead in the next two
years? I'm not, that's why I'm concerned about the government spending
like a drunken sailor and borrowing like a shop-a-holic with a huge house
and H1 hummer to pay for.

You missed the whole point. And that is if things were anywhere as
dire as you think, if the debt load was that high, or the ability to
pay at all in question, Tbonds would not be at 6% today. The best
minds are making the calculations, realtime, everday, and they say
you're wrong.




The Federal reserve has been growing the money supply and has now made
the figures there on secret.

Oh, really? Now all the basic monetary figures are a secret?

Strawman. Didn't say 'all'.

LOL
If they did this, wall street would go nuts and the bond market, who
knows a whole hell of a lot more than you, would tank. Reference
please, and make sure it's not some kook website. I want a ref from
CNN, NY Times, WSJ, someone credible.

The M3 Money supply data is no longer released. Try and keep up with
things. For a cite, will the federal reserve press relase do? Horse's mouth.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/discm3.htm

Is it important? Many think so...

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...tionGauge.aspx

Well whooopy t doo! M3 s no longer available, because the FED and
probably everybody else no longer thinks it reliable or of
significance. Only a conspiracy nut would read more into it than
that.



A growing supply of dollars means a weaker
dollar. Again, you seem way too focused on the here and now. Short term
thinking. What is being done is short term... the long term is being
neglected for the short. You seem to understand this as you avoid any
discussion of the long term issues. You keep focusing on the government's
'feel good and go to sleep' figures for the moment.

I've been hearing kooks like you predict the end of the world because
of a whole host of narrowly selected statistics for decades.

Projection.

And I;'m
not focused on the here and now. I showed you that govt debt, which
you brought into the discussion of foreign goods, is the same relative
to the economy today as it was in the mid 50's. and in the 90's.
That;s short term?

All you have stated as that the binging continues. At some point the
party is over. Or do you keep yourself at maximum debt load to your
income? If you don't do it personally, why not?

Pay attention! As I've said continuously, if you compare the US debt
with any of the ability to pay numbers, this ain't a bing. The debt
was 2X what it is today during WWII. It;s the same relative to the
economy or ability to pay that it was in the 90s. Would it be good if
it were lower? Sure? Is the world gonna end cause it's not, NO!



Again, check the facts before you jump to wild end of the world
predictions. Inflation is at 3%, well within the range that is
recognized as ideal. The period when savings were being eaten away by
inflation was the 70's and that's long gone.

So you're also a member of the 'it can't happen again crowd'. I am sure
people said similiar in the 1960s.... and then came the 70s and stagflation.

Of course it can happen again. Soon as we start trying to manage the
economy, adopt trade policies to try to protect ourselves from the real
world, have income tax rates at 70%, put a heafty extra tax on oil, and
have a FED that spewing out money, without regard to inflation, to try
to hide the effects of the above and keep the economy going.

Gee... that's just what it seems the fed is doing when it stopped
publishing the M3.

Oh I see! Fed decides to stop publishing M3 cause nobody cares about
it and they think it's not usefull. And according to you that's equal
to income tax rates of 70%, taxes on oil, and a FED spewing out money.
LOL The bond boys must be stupid, cause they know what M1, M2, M3
etc are and they think 6% on a US long term bond is fair.





Just look in the
newspaper and you will find all the banks offering savings alternatives
of 5+%. With inflation at 3%, that 's a positive return, last time I
checked. But, then I check, instead of making stuff up.

Once again you refuse to look at the long term. The US is not making
things others want. Dollars are piling up overseas.

Dollars aren't piling up.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/...fx3147533.html

"China foreign exchange reserves top 1 trln usd"

That's called piling up to everyone but the dimwitted.

And anyone but the dimwitted know that the Chinese can't eat paper
notes.


They are being reinvested here because this
country and our economy are very attractive investment opportunities.
And those investments create jobs.

Yeah.. and we'll all pay to drive on roads owned by foreign corporations!
Eventually there won't be anything left to sell.

Over time, they improve themselves, save, get better
jobs and move up the economic ladder.

They don't need to ruin the US manufacturing base to do so. China is a
large nation that could bring itself up on it's internal markets _ALONE_.

And if they could, they should do this instead of free trade, why?
Because you say so?

There is no free trade with china. China has domestic content laws. Try
and sell your made-in-USA widgets there and see how much tarrif is
slapped on them.

Look, any company that has a legitimate beef with unfare import
restrictions with any country is free to purse it. There are
international laws and treaties, see GATT.



It's exactly what's happening
in China if you look at the real facts. Look at Shanhei. It's a
booming city.

I see a government that takes people's land and makes them homeless. Land
they've had in their families for centuries and then gives it to
corporate interests to profit from. It's tyranny. And now we have that
here in the USA given the New London decision.

Yeah, more doom and gloom that shows how far out of touch with reality
you are. Now you want to start ranting about emminent domain. I see
you don;'t want to talk about Shanghei.

I am sorry you are ignorant about how things work in China. You might
want to come up to speed on that.

I've been to China and know perfectly well how things work. You been?
Or do you just sit and refuse to light candles, prefering to curse the
darkness? Why all the venom against China? I agree it would be
much better if they were a democracy. But how do we get there? Shut
them out like Cuba or North Korea? The countries where we've engaged
with tend to move toward democracy. The more trade, people going back
and forth, the more they will learn and value democracy.



Or look how the boogey men of past have improved their
countries, ie Japan, China. Compare that to countries that have
tried to manage trade the most, and they have failed miserably.

As I pointed out to you before, there is no comparison between Japan and
China. It's not the same on any level.

Yes, you're right. China is now at the point where Japan was in the
60's or Korea in the 80s.

You don't get it and never will. Or you do and want to remain ignorant.
In any case, the Japanese worker and US worker were not in wage
competition with each other.

Oh, really? Ask Detroit what their biggest problem is today: Having
much higher labor costs that the foreign competion, which is
principally Japan.



It was the Japanese company vs. the US
company. Both nations having significant labor and environmental
protections. A best-product-wins competition as it should be, a great
deal closer to the free/fair trade ideal.

LOL That sure aint what I heard 30 years ago. People were bitching
how cheap Japanese labor were gonna put the US auto industry out of
business if not stopped. Thirty years later, they are still in
business and we all have better and cheaper cars.


The US worker and the Chinese
worker are in wage competition with each other. If the US worker isn't
cheap enough the US company he works for will shut down the factory and
open a new one in China. Or bring in illegal aliens from Mexico to
replace him.

Try relacing a skilled FAB worker at an Intel semiconductor plant with
an illegal Mexican or an unskilled worker from Haiti. If it were just
low cost wages, Haiti would be the manufacturing capital of the world,
instead of pit.





Never said that was my plan. All I said is you have to put any
economic number in perspective. To rail about some debt number
without comparing it to anything else, like the SIZE OF THE ECONOMY,
renders it just about meaningless. As an example of that, I gave you
the case of grandpa's house, but that went right over your head.

No, you just didn't understand the implications of what you stated. Do
you run your personal finances ever increasing your debt load as your
income increases? Pretty stupid way to run one's finances don't you
agree?

No, I don't agree. If you look at any countries that are advancing,
you will see a steady increase in total debt along with income, GDP,
wages, etc. It's a great sign of economic progress.

So you're up to your eyeballs in debt personally and when you get a raise
you borrow more money to get a nicer car or whatever?

Gee... what happens when hard times come and you end up out of work? You're
****ed. That's what will happen to the USA if hard times come... we'll
all be ****ed. That's why it's a poor way to run one's finances.

Yes, according to you. We just had the biggest stock market crash
since 1929, a major terrorist attack that shut down much of the US for
a couple weeks, a recession, hurricanes, but we're still here.

And again, DEBT is only important to ability to pay. BOND market
votes every day, and they say 6% on US long term bonds is cool. You
know more than them?





Always growing one's debt load, keeping it maxed out? It's a
stupid way to run personal finances and even worse when a government's
finances are run that way.

Well, it;s not maxed out, as I told you debt as a percentage of GDP was
twice what it is today during WWII. Now, am I in favor of reducing
it? Sure, whenever they're ready to reduce the growth of federal
spending.

During WW2... nice extreme example. However GDP isn't as important as the
revenue the government takes in.... take a look to see where the income
tax goes....

Glad you asked about revenue. Federal revenue is at 18.4%, slightly
above the avearge of the last 40 years. Bond traders are happy?
What''s your problem? This is like someone buying a $400K house,
where there mortgage payment is well within an acceptable range
relative to income and you screaming "Oh my God the DEBT! It only
took 10K in debt to buy a house 40 years ago!" Get it now?



Plus that federal debt doesn't even include the future liabilities that
there is no projected funding for.

Yeah... you ignore that... any reasonable person doing the finances would
consider such things....

Nice strawman. I haven't argued free trade is bad....

Not a strawman, I was just trying to figure out what the economist you
referenced has to do with anything under discussion here.

Um no you weren't. You were assigning an argument to me as usual.

STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN ALERT WHOOPP!

Try following the rational argument



You provide a reference to a nice little article from 5 years ago about
an economist who won the Nobel prize and I'm supposed to do the poking
around to figure out what the hell the relevance is? LOL.

Yes, you've made it clear you need everything spoon fed to you since
your arugments thus far have been a regurgitation of what Rush Limbaugh
says.

And you;ve provided what? A link to a nice chap who won the Nobel
Prize and says what that has to do with anything? I've provided you
with dozens of hard economic statistics: You response, either ignore
them or insinuate there is some conspiracy to alter them to make the
look better. LOL



Since when is it neo-con spin to point out that the tax cuts worked and
the economy is doing nicely? Cutting taxes in times of recession was
accepted as core liberal Keynsian economic fact for most of the last
century. It apparently was accepted and worked when JFK did it. But
now, for some peculiar reason, it's now a bad idea. I guess Bush
should have raised taxes, so we could have had plunged the economy into
the calamity you desperatley want.

It is when your arguments sound like the Rush Limbaugh show. You keep
harping on the same things and have the view that long term mismanagement
is fine.

Gee, maybe Rush is right about free trade?




Free trade is where we don't listen to guys like you and try to lock
out foreign competition on the faulty notion that everyone is going to
be better off.

Again, strawmen. I never stated anything of the sort. Free trade doesn't
exist. Plain and simple. US and China trade is not free, fair, or
anything else of the sort. That's a fact. It doesn't mean I want to lock
out oreign competition or anything else, it's a fact, there is no such
thing as free trade. Tarrifs, local laws, etc and so forth exist all over
the world. There is no such thing as free trade.

Now you want to argue fine points of definition? Seems Bush41,
Clinton, Congress and most economists understand it well enough though.
They all supported NAFTA.

Not my fault you fall for image.


My image? Typical non-response. Why didn't you say STRAWMAN! I
was only trying to point out that there is broad support, in both
parties for free trade.


I'm the one for FREEDOM, including trade.

You're arguing pro-china. China is an oppressive modern police state
where there is no such thing as conflict of interest. Where corporate
CEO, government offical, military general, and high ranking party member
can be all the same guy.

I'm not pro China. I'm pro free trade and recognize that there are
huge benefits from it.

There is no free trade with china. Try selling US made widgets there.

You mean like computer chips, or planes, both of which they buy from
the US?




And I think I entered this thread by saying
that low cost imports are not all bad. You have to look at both sides
of the ledger. They provide low cost products that everyone,
including and maybe especially, the lower income receive benefit from.

Yeah, his job is overseas... he wasn't low income before... but now he
can buy the crap with his unemployment check!

Oh my! It;s the evil Chinese that made someone unemployed. Not that
he didn;t finish high school, (which is where the highest unemployment
is), not that he didn't get trade schooling or go to college, not that
he didn't make the right life choices. No, it's the evil Chinese!
And if you bother to check, unemployment is near 40 year lows LOL




If a low income family can buy a foreign product cheaply, that is a
positive. Without foreign competition, inflation would be higher and
we would have crappy products. Again,. the classic is the US auto
industry. If they did not have oreign competition, we would still be
buying crappy cars.

Strawman. There is foreign competition and then there is 'free trade'.
There is no free trade with China. It's wage competition between the US
worker and the Chinese worker. Not competition in the free market.

STRAWMAN WHEN losing argument and have no rational thought STRAWMAN.
Can you possibly be that stupid that you don't recognize that there
is a positive benefit for low income families being able to buy a
foreign product that would cost 2-3X if made here? How would they
like a nice US made shirt at $100?




Your the one that find
something wrong with folks in China providing some products which we
get an good prices and that help them improve their lives by working up
the economic ladder.

Another strawman.

That seems to be your favorite word, instead of any rational argument,
backed by facts. And it's not a "strawman". This happened in Japan,
Korea, Singapore.... Try reading.

You keep assigning arguments to me then knocking them down. I call it
what it is. Japan was an industrialized nation before WW2. US companies
did not relocate factories in mass to Korea. South Korea isn't operated
like China either. You don't understand the fundamental differences
between the nations and how you're attempt to draw a parallel is in error.


Who the hell cares if Japan was industrialized before WWII? This means
what to me? The fact is with lower labor costs and better quality,
they offered great products that Americans chose to buy. Exactly what
is happening with China today. As far as US companies relocating in
mass to Korea, no they didn;'t do that. Nor are they relocating in
mass to China either. The vast majority of products from China are
coming from Chinese factories and being then sold by US companies.




I find a problem with US corporations making everything in china for
sale in the USA. I have a problem when China is being used to drive down
the wages and crush the middle class of the USA.

Yeah, I'm sure they all feel crushed when they buy a fan made in China
for $15, instead of one made here for $40.

No jobs, POS $15 fan that falls apart in a few months vs. jobs and a $40 fan
that lasts decades. hmm...

Yeah, only you are smart enough to figure out that the cost/benefit of
the products we buy every day is all wrong. I've bought a lot of
stuff made abroad and am perfectly happy with the cost/performance.
How about those US cars from the 70's, 80's bet you loved them too, Eh?





I have a problem with
putting a great deal of economic power over the USA in the hands of an
oppressive police state. I have a problem with that US corporations have
no problem spewing pollution in china when they know better.

The real question is, other than complaining about, what exactly do you
want to do about it?

The US federal government needs to drastically cut back spending.

Oh my God, something we agree on.


The chinese currancy needs to float.

That would be good too.



their tarriffs need to be removed or
the US should enact similiar domestic content laws in response. That
would be a good start.

As I said before, if any company has a beef, there are avenues to
pursue it. I don't see it happening, do you?




Nice avoidance of the fact that your 'the good jobs stay here' argument
just got shreadded.

No, it didn;t get shredded at all. Last time I checked Airbus is a
European consortium, not a US conpany.

Guess you don't know who boeing's major competition is.

Oh, wow, now I'm enlightened? Thanks for pointing this out? And
that has what the hell to do with anything? Because the big socialist
Airbus is source some stuff from China, that it's the end of the world?
Good grief!



How is that argument going to hold up when Boeing, to
compete with Airbus moves their production to China? It isn't. Nobody, no
job is safe.

Wow, no job is safe? You really think so? Welcome to the real
world.

Especially when 'free trade' advocates like yourself consider free trade
the ability to drive down wages and one way trade barriers.

Any company that has a beef should pursue it. But maybe they know
more about their individual markets and trade barriers than you do and
know they aint got a case.




Do you think you can live here in the USA on the wages of a
worker in China? Why don't you try that, since you're all into
competition and thinking it's all fair. You should undercut the chinese
guy that does the same thing you do, right? Think you can live on that?

Why should I or anyone else labor away to make a fan or a shirt, when
there are far better jobs and opportunities available for anyone that
cares to apply themselves?

Doing what you do today in the USA but earning the typical salary for
that function in China. Guess reading is a problem for you. Can you
compete with the Chinese guy doing your job in china?

Not only can I, but I do. I'm a trader. I trader mostly futures.
Anyone with a terminal anyhwere in the world can trade the markets,
just as I do. This notion that there has to be salary parity is
totally bogus. Does the Chinese guy pay $10K a year in real estate
taxes, 36% income tax, 7% sales tax? Does a decent house in India
cost $300K? There never has been salary parity and there never will.



Whatever it is you do for living, whatever it is you want to do, there's
a guy in China who can do it for less than you can because he can live on
far less than you can and with far less than you do.

Wow, so what else is new? And how are you gonna solve that?




Japanese quality and manufacturing concepts that they used effectively
came in large part from an american US corporations laughed at and
wouldn't listen to. Your ignorance is astounding.

My ignorance? "came in large part from an american US corporations",
what the hell does that mean? LOL

Read the whole thing. It seems now you're either a total moron or just
playing usenet games. Read the whole sentance rather than complaining
that a segment of a sentance doesn't make sense. OF course it doesn't.
Then again, you did that on purpose.


"came in large part from an american US corporations",

And you;re calling me the moron? LOL I read it several times
trying to makes any sense of it.




Real economic numbers? US federal government debt. US federal government
future liabilities. Weak dollar. T-Bills and dollars held by China. Trade
deficits. Those are real economic numbers. They point to a long term
problem. One you'd ignore because the manipulated political type numbers
of the short term look good to you.

Spouting out the above, without a chart, historical trends, comparing
it to the size of the economy, or anything else proves what? It's
like saying company X made 1 Billion in profit last year. Without
comparing it to their sales, other similar companies, etc, it doesn;'t
say much at all.

Oh I forgot... you need everything spoon fed to you. Why don't you go
listen to Limbaugh some more?


I don't need to listen to Limbaugh. All the great economic numbers I
gave you are readily available, if only you;d care to look and put
things in perspective, instead of knowing how bad and dire everything
is.




You're quite clearly a be happy and spend today, who cares about tomorrow
type.

And you're a guy who when presented with fact, says "Strawman!" World
still sucks!

You make up arguments for me, those are strawmen, not facts.


STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN!! OH NO STRAWMAN!!!

In article .com, wrote:

Comparing debt to the size of the economy is just a feel good for now
measure like you getting a raise in salary and then using that to borrow
more money so you can have a new bass boat when you were at your debt
limit prior to the raise. It's the ability to pay the debt that counts.

Oh, really? And when't the last time the US missed a debt payment?

The here and now mentality. Just keep borrowing and eventually there
won't be enough. And if you pay attention to things, there have been some
interesting moves cash flow wise already.

nonsense deleted

In fact, this decision is made ever day in the market for govt bonds.
And institutions and foreign govts that know a hell of a lot more than
you, say that at 6%, the US is perfectly capable of meeting it's debt
obligations.

For now... what about later? To keep on borrowing until the
limit is found... seems like bad policy to anyone with half a brain.

Where is the US federal government's ability to pay the debt?

It;s in the fact that the US has never failed to pay a debt and that
tax revenues are sufficient to support it. Are all the bond buyers
happy with 6% stupid and only you can see the light?

The US is not paying the debt. It's paying the interest on the ever
growing debt. When is the -principle-, the debt, going to be paid instead
of revolving it? That would be never according to your posts, borrowing
can go into infinity with no limit. It has a limit, when the population
can no longer be taxed more to pay the interest.

more nonsense deleted

Then what exactly were you trying to say?

Here it is, one more time. Now pay attention, you can't possibly be
that stupid. You have to compare economic numbers like US debt, with
relevant contemporary numbers. And when you do that, the US debt is
half it's peak, and at levels similar to the 90s. Would it be nice if
it were lower? Sure. Is the US facing a big calamity? No. Your
vacuum logic is like asking someone what was your debt 40 years ago?
Oh, $5k? And now it's $150k? Oh my God, you're doomed! Never mind
that then he was earning $8k and now he's earning $150K. Or that he
has a house now worth 300K. Get it?

You obviously don't. But then again, you believe in racking up debt into
infinity. At some point, the debt holders want to be paid. Or worse, they
start strong arming the USA with economic threats. Do as we want or the
dollar goes down the toilet. And no matter how expensive that would be to
an enemy balance sheet wise it's cheaper than military war with the US.

I said the national debt, which you brought
up, is about the same in size relative to the economy that it was in
the 90s or mid 50's.

So when you earn more, do you go out and borrow more?

Yes,

So you're one of those morons with maxed credit cards and/or mortgaged to
the brim?

if you bothered to look at economic statistics, you would see that
countries with higher per capita income have higher per capita debt.
This isn't rocket science. Who has a bigger mortgage, the guy making
$150K with a $500K house or the guy making $25K, whose a renter?

Another false comparison and false choice.

Now what happens when the housing market takes a dive? Opps... you're
screwed.




This way you stay up
to your eyeballs in debt? Do you do that personally?

Not up to my eyeballs, no. Nor would I advise anyone to do that. But
over the last several decades, who has come out ahead? Anyone who
bought a home with a large, but realistic mortgage, is way ahead.

Until the bubble bursts.

Of course you'll say
you won't. Because it would be stupid to do that. Yet, you fully endorse
the US government running it's finances that way.

No, again, if you look at how big the economy is today, and tax
revenues that support the ability to pay, the US govt is doing fine.

Doing fine? Only the interest is being paid on an ever increasing debt.
That is not _fine_.

Do you think you;'re smarter than all the bond traders in the world?
They think US bonds are a fair value at 6%. If they had any doubts
about the ability to be paid, credit worthiness, etc, those bonds would
be 3X that.

There is stuff left to forclose on. What happens once the infastructure
has all been 'leased' for 99 years to foreign corporations? What happens
when all the ports are 'leased' away? What happens when there is nothing
left? What happens when the population can't provide enough tax revenue
to meet the interest payments? You propose borrowing into infinity
because today things seem ok. They might not be ok later... In fact
borrowing into infinity insures that they won't be ok at some point. It's
already quite a balancing act to keep things going. When the juggler
misses a ball, what happens?

Actually the percentage of GDP figure for debt wasn't used to calm
the people until rather recently.

Maybe recent to you, but economists have used it all along.

'calm the people' figure it out for yourself.

That's long term foolishness. But it looks good in the short term.

No. Have you ever taken a course in micro or macro economics? Is
any major US corporation debt free? Of course not, the debt tends to
increase with the size of the company Look at any developing country.
the higher the std of living, the higher the debt. What you are
advocating is using what? The debt level of the US govt in 1776?
And it should be below that? Ridiculous to the max!

You don't apparently know what happens to 'developing countries'. The
borrowing is designed to break them so that those lending the money can
come in and take the nation's resources and impose all sorts of
conditions on said nations. It's a nasty world we live in.

Corporations also do not borrow into infinity. When their debt and assets
are out of wack they have more and more trouble borrowing. You are again
playing with strawmen. Assigning a 'no debt' argument to me then knocking
it down. This is your continued nonsense. I grow tired of it.

The problem is that the US federal government is borrowing into infinity
and not reducing principle, just adding to it. On top of this future
liabilities are huge. It's a set up for disaster. You say 'don't worry,
be happy, things are good now'. Corporate borrowing uses the good times
to pay off the loans from the bad times, not to borrow even more and dig
a deeper hole!

That's where the US government will end up. That is unless we start
paying a whole lot more (like most of our incomes) in income taxes. You
do know that's what the income tax pays don't you? The interest on the
debt.

And there we have it folks. According to dimwit here, unless we start
"paying a whole lot more (like most of our incomes) in income taxes",
the world is gonna end. Here;s a news flash: CUT SPENDING

Ok I through with you asshole. Name calling, strawmen. I'm done with you.
BTW I mentioned massive spending cuts numerous times but of course you
purposely forget that. But then again the government isn't cutting
spending. In fact, you recommend borrowing into infinity.

rest snipped unread

Brent P wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

Comparing debt to the size of the economy is just a feel good for now
measure like you getting a raise in salary and then using that to borrow
more money so you can have a new bass boat when you were at your debt
limit prior to the raise. It's the ability to pay the debt that counts.

Oh, really? And when't the last time the US missed a debt payment?

The here and now mentality. Just keep borrowing and eventually there
won't be enough. And if you pay attention to things, there have been some
interesting moves cash flow wise already.

Yes, lets keep the US govt debt at 1776 levels, never mind that the
population had grown 100X and the economy with it. Anyone like me who
would like to compare it with the current population, we're just
spinning or using distorted data from economic authorities with sinster
motives.



nonsense deleted

In fact, this decision is made ever day in the market for govt bonds.
And institutions and foreign govts that know a hell of a lot more than
you, say that at 6%, the US is perfectly capable of meeting it's debt
obligations.

For now... what about later? To keep on borrowing until the
limit is found... seems like bad policy to anyone with half a brain.

Again, do you think only YOU is smart enough to think about gettinf
repaid in the "future."
Bond buyers with PHD's, including ones working for foreight govts are
thinking about this every day and agreeing that 6% is a good price for
US long term debt today. If you're so smart, why don't you go short
Tbond futures tomorrow morning, when they open in Chicago. You can
make a fortune if you know half as much as you claim.




Where is the US federal government's ability to pay the debt?

It;s in the fact that the US has never failed to pay a debt and that
tax revenues are sufficient to support it. Are all the bond buyers
happy with 6% stupid and only you can see the light?

The US is not paying the debt. It's paying the interest on the ever
growing debt. When is the -principle-, the debt, going to be paid instead
of revolving it? That would be never according to your posts, borrowing
can go into infinity with no limit. It has a limit, when the population
can no longer be taxed more to pay the interest.

Yes, much like my local govt. Or a family moving up from a 200K house
to a $400K one with a bigger mortgage. All bad according to you.




more nonsense deleted

Then what exactly were you trying to say?

Here it is, one more time. Now pay attention, you can't possibly be
that stupid. You have to compare economic numbers like US debt, with
relevant contemporary numbers. And when you do that, the US debt is
half it's peak, and at levels similar to the 90s. Would it be nice if
it were lower? Sure. Is the US facing a big calamity? No. Your
vacuum logic is like asking someone what was your debt 40 years ago?
Oh, $5k? And now it's $150k? Oh my God, you're doomed! Never mind
that then he was earning $8k and now he's earning $150K. Or that he
has a house now worth 300K. Get it?

You obviously don't. But then again, you believe in racking up debt into
infinity. At some point, the debt holders want to be paid. Or worse, they
start strong arming the USA with economic threats. Do as we want or the
dollar goes down the toilet. And no matter how expensive that would be to
an enemy balance sheet wise it's cheaper than military war with the US.


Yeah, more doomsday scenarios. Sort of like saying I shouldn't take
out a mortgage on my house, because someday it could be bought by
someone seeking to do me harm.



I said the national debt, which you brought
up, is about the same in size relative to the economy that it was in
the 90s or mid 50's.

So when you earn more, do you go out and borrow more?

Yes,

So you're one of those morons with maxed credit cards and/or mortgaged to
the brim?

No, never said that. All I said was if you look just look at rising
debt, you will see it goes hand in hand with a growing economy and a
rising std of living. Go look at the per captia debt in Sudan and
compare it with that in France.





if you bothered to look at economic statistics, you would see that
countries with higher per capita income have higher per capita debt.
This isn't rocket science. Who has a bigger mortgage, the guy making
$150K with a $500K house or the guy making $25K, whose a renter?

Another false comparison and false choice.

Now what happens when the housing market takes a dive? Opps... you're
screwed.

It's totally relevant and done all the time by everyone from economists
to politicla pundits. Only clowns like you would say it isn't
relevant, which just blows your credibiltiy.


Bank loan officer: So, what;s your current income, assets, and
networth?

You: Don;'t matter, I own 20K total, that's all you need to know

LOL LOL and LOL



This way you stay up
to your eyeballs in debt? Do you do that personally?

Not up to my eyeballs, no. Nor would I advise anyone to do that. But
over the last several decades, who has come out ahead? Anyone who
bought a home with a large, but realistic mortgage, is way ahead.

Until the bubble bursts.

Oh my! The bubble! We are all doomed. If the huge stock market
crash of 2001, the recession, and the major terroist attack didn't sink
this economy, then what big bubble is gonnna.

I'm sorry, but now I am just laughing, cause you are such an ass.




Of course you'll say
you won't. Because it would be stupid to do that. Yet, you fully endorse
the US government running it's finances that way.

No, again, if you look at how big the economy is today, and tax
revenues that support the ability to pay, the US govt is doing fine.

Doing fine? Only the interest is being paid on an ever increasing debt.
That is not _fine_.

It;s been fine since 1776.




Do you think you;'re smarter than all the bond traders in the world?
They think US bonds are a fair value at 6%. If they had any doubts
about the ability to be paid, credit worthiness, etc, those bonds would
be 3X that.

There is stuff left to forclose on. What happens once the infastructure
has all been 'leased' for 99 years to foreign corporations? What happens
when all the ports are 'leased' away? What happens when there is nothing
left? What happens when the population can't provide enough tax revenue
to meet the interest payments? You propose borrowing into infinity
because today things seem ok. They might not be ok later... In fact
borrowing into infinity insures that they won't be ok at some point. It's
already quite a balancing act to keep things going. When the juggler
misses a ball, what happens?


What happens when a big old meteor hits the earth?



Actually the percentage of GDP figure for debt wasn't used to calm
the people until rather recently.

Maybe recent to you, but economists have used it all along.

'calm the people' figure it out for yourself.


Oh yes. all the economists, liberal, conservative, it doesn;t matter.
They are all in what? A grand conspiracy to "calm th people"? Give
us a break. And save the strawman bull**** too, ok?




That's long term foolishness. But it looks good in the short term.

No. Have you ever taken a course in micro or macro economics? Is
any major US corporation debt free? Of course not, the debt tends to
increase with the size of the company Look at any developing country.
the higher the std of living, the higher the debt. What you are
advocating is using what? The debt level of the US govt in 1776?
And it should be below that? Ridiculous to the max!

You don't apparently know what happens to 'developing countries'. The
borrowing is designed to break them so that those lending the money can
come in and take the nation's resources and impose all sorts of
conditions on said nations. It's a nasty world we live in.


Oh yes, another big old conspiracy. Has anybody taken over Chile,
Argentian, Brazil, Sudan, etc lately? Maybe somebody should, but last
time I checked, nobody had.



When their debt and assets
are out of wack they have more and more trouble borrowing. You are again
playing with strawmen. Assigning a 'no debt' argument to me then knocking
it down. This is your continued nonsense. I grow tired of it.


And I grow tired of the word STRAWMAN in lack of anything cogent.


The problem is that the US federal government is borrowing into infinity
and not reducing principle, just adding to it. On top of this future
liabilities are huge. It's a set up for disaster. You say 'don't worry,
be happy, things are good now'. Corporate borrowing uses the good times
to pay off the loans from the bad times, not to borrow even more and dig
a deeper hole!

Oh, really? Go check the corporate debt of IBM, GM, GE and Boeing.
According to you, it should be zereo or lower than it was decades ago.
In fact, you will find it larger. Why BECAUSE they are succesful and
growing you moron.





That's where the US government will end up. That is unless we start
paying a whole lot more (like most of our incomes) in income taxes. You
do know that's what the income tax pays don't you? The interest on the
debt.

And there we have it folks. According to dimwit here, unless we start
"paying a whole lot more (like most of our incomes) in income taxes",
the world is gonna end. Here;s a news flash: CUT SPENDING

Ok I through with you asshole. Name calling, strawmen. I'm done with you.
BTW I mentioned massive spending cuts numerous times but of course you
purposely forget that. But then again the government isn't cutting
spending. In fact, you recommend borrowing into infinity.



I'm so sorry you find STRAWMEN everywhere. They must be like the
conspiracy at the FED to hide M# so everyone but you won't know we're
finished. Go to the kitchen and put a collander over your fool head
and wrap yourself in aluminum. That will protect you from the rays of
the conspiracy of truth trying to get through to your head.

In article . com, wrote:

strawmen arguments deleted

Again, do you think only YOU is smart enough to think about gettinf
repaid in the "future."
Bond buyers with PHD's, including ones working for foreight govts are
thinking about this every day and agreeing that 6% is a good price for
US long term debt today. If you're so smart, why don't you go short
Tbond futures tomorrow morning, when they open in Chicago. You can
make a fortune if you know half as much as you claim.

irrelevant.

Yes, much like my local govt. Or a family moving up from a 200K house
to a $400K one with a bigger mortgage. All bad according to you.

Strawman and apples to oranges.... people who move up in houses typically
are paying back principle and secure the loan with the property.

Yeah, more doomsday scenarios. Sort of like saying I shouldn't take
out a mortgage on my house, because someday it could be bought by
someone seeking to do me harm.

Strawman.

So you're one of those morons with maxed credit cards and/or mortgaged to
the brim?

No, never said that.

You don't practice what you preach then.

All I said was if you look just look at rising
debt, you will see it goes hand in hand with a growing economy and a
rising std of living. Go look at the per captia debt in Sudan and
compare it with that in France.

What creates a growing economy and rising standard of living is liberty,
not ever lasting and ever growing debt. Temporary debt is what growth
has, not the conditions that exist today. At some point the economy's
growth will not meet the borrowing needs of the federal government as the
liabilities come due.

The US government is always getting new credit cards to pay off the old
ones.

Now what happens when the housing market takes a dive? Opps... you're
screwed.

It's totally relevant and done all the time by everyone from economists
to politicla pundits. Only clowns like you would say it isn't
relevant, which just blows your credibiltiy.

Bank loan officer: So, what;s your current income, assets, and
networth?

You: Don;'t matter, I own 20K total, that's all you need to know
LOL LOL and LOL

Strawman.

Not up to my eyeballs, no. Nor would I advise anyone to do that. But
over the last several decades, who has come out ahead? Anyone who
bought a home with a large, but realistic mortgage, is way ahead.

Until the bubble bursts.

Oh my! The bubble! We are all doomed. If the huge stock market
crash of 2001, the recession, and the major terroist attack didn't sink
this economy, then what big bubble is gonnna.
I'm sorry, but now I am just laughing, cause you are such an ass.

An intelligent person secures himself against a potentional bad turn.
Obviously you're not one because you go on faith that everything will be
good forever.

No, again, if you look at how big the economy is today, and tax
revenues that support the ability to pay, the US govt is doing fine.

Doing fine? Only the interest is being paid on an ever increasing debt.
That is not _fine_.

It;s been fine since 1776.

Back then the US government actually paid principle back... The US
government hasn't paid any principle back now since the 1960s. Just moved
the debt from one credit card to another.

There is stuff left to forclose on. What happens once the infastructure
has all been 'leased' for 99 years to foreign corporations? What happens
when all the ports are 'leased' away? What happens when there is nothing
left? What happens when the population can't provide enough tax revenue
to meet the interest payments? You propose borrowing into infinity
because today things seem ok. They might not be ok later... In fact
borrowing into infinity insures that they won't be ok at some point. It's
already quite a balancing act to keep things going. When the juggler
misses a ball, what happens?


What happens when a big old meteor hits the earth?

Non-responsive.

nonsense snipped

You don't apparently know what happens to 'developing countries'. The
borrowing is designed to break them so that those lending the money can
come in and take the nation's resources and impose all sorts of
conditions on said nations. It's a nasty world we live in.

Oh yes, another big old conspiracy. Has anybody taken over Chile,
Argentian, Brazil, Sudan, etc lately? Maybe somebody should, but last
time I checked, nobody had.

Strawman. Nobody takes over the government. They take the wealth and
place conditions on the debtor nation.

When their debt and assets
are out of wack they have more and more trouble borrowing. You are again
playing with strawmen. Assigning a 'no debt' argument to me then knocking
it down. This is your continued nonsense. I grow tired of it.

And I grow tired of the word STRAWMAN in lack of anything cogent.

You keep using that technique, you can stop any time you want.

The problem is that the US federal government is borrowing into infinity
and not reducing principle, just adding to it. On top of this future
liabilities are huge. It's a set up for disaster. You say 'don't worry,
be happy, things are good now'. Corporate borrowing uses the good times
to pay off the loans from the bad times, not to borrow even more and dig
a deeper hole!

Oh, really? Go check the corporate debt of IBM, GM, GE and Boeing.
According to you, it should be zereo or lower than it was decades ago.
In fact, you will find it larger. Why BECAUSE they are succesful and
growing you moron.

Strawman.

I'm so sorry you find STRAWMEN everywhere.

That's because you keep using that 'technique'.

They must be like the
conspiracy at the FED to hide M# so everyone but you won't know we're
finished. Go to the kitchen and put a collander over your fool head
and wrap yourself in aluminum. That will protect you from the rays of
the conspiracy of truth trying to get through to your head.

And of course this childish insult routine. Now go play on the freeway.

*PLONK*

Brent P wrote:
In article . com, wrote:

You just stated that the number is meaningless, and in the sense that the
currancy is not related to anything real, you're correct. Any number of
games can be played with it.

The number is not meaningless. It's very meaningful if used and
compared with other relevant economic statistics, like the size of the
economy.

Comparing debt to the size of the economy is just a feel good for now
measure

No. It's the correct way to analyze the national debt. It is
accurately indicative of the ability to pay and the effect on exchange
rates.

Brent P wrote:
In article om, wrote:

Of course there is another aspect of this that you completely overlook.
And that is the great benefit of people being able to buy that car for
$7000. All the folks who complain about jobs lost to lower cost
labor completely ignore the fact that everyone is also receiving a huge
positive benefit from this. This is especially true of lower income
families. If they had to pay 2X for everything they buy at Walmart and
everywhere else, it's not clear that they would be any better off.

Lower income people in the USA cannot compete with near slave wages. It
cuts them out of the job market.

There is less than 5% unemployment. No one is being cut out of any job
market.

Brent P wrote:
In article . com, wrote:

Brent P wrote:
In article om, wrote:

Of course there is another aspect of this that you completely overlook.
And that is the great benefit of people being able to buy that car for
$7000. All the folks who complain about jobs lost to lower cost
labor completely ignore the fact that everyone is also receiving a huge
positive benefit from this. This is especially true of lower income
families. If they had to pay 2X for everything they buy at Walmart and
everywhere else, it's not clear that they would be any better off.

Lower income people in the USA cannot compete with near slave wages. It
cuts them out of the job market. It's doing them no favors what-so-ever.

Unemployment is near historic lows, GDP is growing at 3.5%, inflation
and interest rates are both low, real estate is at record highs, and
more Americans own homes today than ever before. No reasonable person
and certainly no economist, would call that a collapsing economy.

I didn't call it a collasping economy. I called it an economy of short
term thinking.

No more so than at any other time.


As for low cost products doing low income people no good, that is
absolutely false.

In the long term it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Low income people are paying less for goods. The prices
of the goods they buy are falling relative to their incomes. They're
better off.


Look at who shops at Kmart, Walmart, etc. Those
products would cost much more if it were not for foreign low cost labor
producing them.

Funny how I can find even in those stores, in corners and places made in
USA goods that cost no more and even less much of the time.

Perhaps some times.


These low cost products are of tremendous benefit to
everyone, including the low income. As someone earlier pointed out,
China is planning a $7000 entry level car. Do you think that is of no
benefit to low income families here in the USA? You're so biased only
looking for negatives that you can't see the forest for the trees.

I don't think you understand the long term game.

You don't understand any long term game.

Brent P wrote:
In article . com, wrote:
Brent P wrote:

Unemployment is near historic lows, GDP is growing at 3.5%, inflation
and interest rates are both low, real estate is at record highs, and
more Americans own homes today than ever before. No reasonable person
and certainly no economist, would call that a collapsing economy.

I didn't call it a collasping economy. I called it an economy of short
term thinking. That is unless you think that 9 trillion in debt and
several times that in future liabilities is something you can shrug off.
Then there is the clever calculations that produce some of those figures
you quote.

So, it's better to rely on personal opinion, than to look at decades of
real economic data that is readily available?

Why don't you pay attention to people from the World Bank, Federal
Reserve, etc and so on if you don't believe me?

I do. They unanimously say that trade is beneficial.


It's not clear what
exact "$9 trillion in debt you are referring to." If it's the US govt
debt, an absolute number doesn't mean much by itself.

Well if you want to play games with the currancy.

Ask grandpa what
he paid for his first house. Does that mean everyone who pays 10X that
for a house today is doing something wrong? If you look at govt debt
as a percentage of GDP, today it's about the same as it was in the mid
90's and also about the same as it was in the mid 50's. During WWII,
it was twice as high. We survived that, didn't we?

So you want to make the debt smaller by inflating the currancy.

The real value of the debt is what matters.


That appears to be what is being done.

That is not what's being done. If your parents earned $10,000 a year
in 1950 and had a $20,000 mortgage on a house, and if your earn
$100,000 a year and have a $200,000 mortgage on a comparable house, and
if the price level today is 10 times what it was in 1950, then you're
in the same financial position regarding housing as your parents were.


As for low cost products doing low income people no good, that is
absolutely false.

In the long term it doesn't. For the short term, get the crap now sure.
But in the long term no. Unless they are always supposed to be poor.

Of course it benefits them in the long term, by low income people being
able to conitnue to buy good cheaply. That continues on.

But work as slaves... like in china.

No one in the U.S. is working as a slave.


But if you don't want to listen to me about the danger of economic
collaspe, maybe you'll listen to this guy:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/1...obel_2001.html

I mean he's only been chief economist for the world bank and has a nobel
prize in the field.... and he's not agreeing with you...

Nothing in that page indicates any disagreement.


Look at who shops at Kmart, Walmart, etc. Those
products would cost much more if it were not for foreign low cost labor
producing them.

Funny how I can find even in those stores, in corners and places made in
USA goods that cost no more and even less much of the time.

And do you think you'd find them at those prices if you eliminated
foreign competition?

Strawman.

No, not in the least. It's a legitimate question, and you whiffed on
it.


These low cost products are of tremendous benefit to
everyone, including the low income. As someone earlier pointed out,
China is planning a $7000 entry level car. Do you think that is of no
benefit to low income families here in the USA? You're so biased only
looking for negatives that you can't see the forest for the trees.

I don't think you understand the long term game.

I don't think you understand economics, the great benefit of free
trade, and the huge problems that get caused when you try to have govt
correct perceived imperfections in free markets. Free markets aren't
perfect. Sometimes they are even brutal. But they are far better to
solutions of protectionism, that result in govt management of the
economy and trade wars.

There is no such thing as free trade.

There is more free trade and less free trade. We generally live in a
period of more free trade.


China is playing a long term game while the US is playing a short term one.

According to you, because you focus only on the negatives. There are
many US companies that lead the world today today in many areas. Would
you rather have MSFT, INTC, Boeing, etc, or a country with unskilled
laborers making shirts?

You don't seem to grasp the whole picture. Guess who's going to be
building Airbus aircraft? Guess... you think any job is safe? You're
deluding yourself. It's not just no-skill low-skill or 'dirty-jobs' that
are going to china. In fact, with the manufactruring now much of the
engineering is going too...

The knowledge drain from the US to China has been monumental as well. US
company starts manufacturing over there, next thing they know they have a
new competitor using everything they learned from the US company.

This is the same tired, stale, discredited crap that was said 20 and 30
years ago about Japan. Japan has been mired in stagnation since 1990.

There are *always* gains from exchange - always. China may well master
some manufacturing techniques that we pioneer. No big deal. The U.S.
will continue to have a comparative advantage in activities that
require a highly skilled and knowledgeable workforce for decades to
come.


Guess who benefits
from this in the long term? China will be the super power and the US will
in many respects be third worlded. Or do you think it is a good thing to
have people in the USA compete for jobs with china?

What works is a free economy.

There is no such thing.

Yes, there is.


And in that scenario, each country
makes products that fit their workforce and capabilities. Everyone
made your argument 40 years ago, when Japan was the boogey man. Then
is was supposed to be Taiwan that was going to ruin us all. Then
Korea. Funny how we are still here and by any reasonable
interpretation of actual economic statistics, we're doing quite well.

Japan was never a boogey man.

Yes, they most certainly were. You're too young to remember it.


If we're failing anywhere, it's because we have a segment of the
population that doesn't get educated, doesn't even finish high school.
The solution to that is to work on that problem, not try to compete in
making shirts or baskets on the theory that the solution is to have
more no skills jobs to compete with foreign low cost labor.

Again you have no grasp of the situation.

No, that applies to you. You exhibit classic mercantilist ignorance.

In article . com, Leif Erikson wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article . com, wrote:

You just stated that the number is meaningless, and in the sense that the
currancy is not related to anything real, you're correct. Any number of
games can be played with it.

The number is not meaningless. It's very meaningful if used and
compared with other relevant economic statistics, like the size of the
economy.

Comparing debt to the size of the economy is just a feel good for now
measure

No. It's the correct way to analyze the national debt. It is
accurately indicative of the ability to pay and the effect on exchange
rates.

And the USA is going to pay the debt exactly when now? Or just revolve it
and revolve it until there's just too much....

In article . com, Leif Erikson wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article om, wrote:

Of course there is another aspect of this that you completely overlook.
And that is the great benefit of people being able to buy that car for
$7000. All the folks who complain about jobs lost to lower cost
labor completely ignore the fact that everyone is also receiving a huge
positive benefit from this. This is especially true of lower income
families. If they had to pay 2X for everything they buy at Walmart and
everywhere else, it's not clear that they would be any better off.

Lower income people in the USA cannot compete with near slave wages. It
cuts them out of the job market.

There is less than 5% unemployment. No one is being cut out of any job
market.

I take it you are totally unfamiliar with how unemployment rate is
calculated. The persons of whom I speak don't get counted in the
unemployment rate.

In article .com, Leif Erikson wrote:

I didn't call it a collasping economy. I called it an economy of short
term thinking.

No more so than at any other time.

That is not comforting.


As for low cost products doing low income people no good, that is
absolutely false.

In the long term it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Low income people are paying less for goods. The prices
of the goods they buy are falling relative to their incomes. They're
better off.

Prove it.

everyone, including the low income. As someone earlier pointed out,
China is planning a $7000 entry level car. Do you think that is of no
benefit to low income families here in the USA? You're so biased only
looking for negatives that you can't see the forest for the trees.

I don't think you understand the long term game.

You don't understand any long term game.

enlighten me then how one can borrow into infinity and never have the the
whole thing collaspe.

In article . com, Leif Erikson wrote:
Brent P wrote:

Why don't you pay attention to people from the World Bank, Federal
Reserve, etc and so on if you don't believe me?

I do. They unanimously say that trade is beneficial.

They unanimously feel the need to breath too.
I've also heard that they believe the sky is blue.

Got anything more than that capt. obvious?

So you want to make the debt smaller by inflating the currancy.

The real value of the debt is what matters.

And one reduces the real value with inflation.

That appears to be what is being done.

That is not what's being done.

Doubling the money supply in shorter and shorter periods of time is what
is being done.

If your parents earned $10,000 a year
in 1950 and had a $20,000 mortgage on a house, and if your earn
$100,000 a year and have a $200,000 mortgage on a comparable house, and
if the price level today is 10 times what it was in 1950, then you're
in the same financial position regarding housing as your parents were.

In reality, people are making more like $50K a year and the house is
closer to $300,000 but hey, you can make arbitary numbers be whatever you
want them to be.

But work as slaves... like in china.

No one in the U.S. is working as a slave.

Just wait. Unless the wage competition stops, that's where we'll end up.

Nothing in that page indicates any disagreement.

Nahh... he's only predicting far more gloom far sooner than I... that is
if you listened to him recently.

And do you think you'd find them at those prices if you eliminated
foreign competition?

Strawman.

No, not in the least. It's a legitimate question, and you whiffed on
it.

No, it's introducing arguments and assigning them to me through a
question. It's a loaded question asking me to defend a point of view I
did not take. One that is absurd and easily knocked down. Hence,
strawman.

There is no such thing as free trade.

There is more free trade and less free trade. We generally live in a
period of more free trade.

So what about china's domestic content laws? Doesn't seem like free trade
to me.

You don't seem to grasp the whole picture. Guess who's going to be
building Airbus aircraft? Guess... you think any job is safe? You're
deluding yourself. It's not just no-skill low-skill or 'dirty-jobs' that
are going to china. In fact, with the manufactruring now much of the
engineering is going too...

The knowledge drain from the US to China has been monumental as well. US
company starts manufacturing over there, next thing they know they have a
new competitor using everything they learned from the US company.

This is the same tired, stale, discredited crap that was said 20 and 30
years ago about Japan. Japan has been mired in stagnation since 1990.

There was no mass relocation of US company facilities to Japan. The
Japanese companies started selling their goods in the USA and made a
better product with more or less equal footing with regard to labor and
environmental regulations.

There are *always* gains from exchange - always. China may well master
some manufacturing techniques that we pioneer. No big deal. The U.S.
will continue to have a comparative advantage in activities that
require a highly skilled and knowledgeable workforce for decades to
come.

Spoken like someone who has never been in the trenches of it.

What works is a free economy.

There is no such thing.

Yes, there is.

There are various levels of regulation, taxation, etc, there is no 'free'.

And in that scenario, each country
makes products that fit their workforce and capabilities. Everyone
made your argument 40 years ago, when Japan was the boogey man. Then
is was supposed to be Taiwan that was going to ruin us all. Then
Korea. Funny how we are still here and by any reasonable
interpretation of actual economic statistics, we're doing quite well.

Japan was never a boogey man.

Yes, they most certainly were. You're too young to remember it.

I remeber it quite well. Japanese companies imported goods of various
quality levels with great success as many US companies did not rise to the
new competition. Some went out of business because they didn't make a
good enough product. China is entirely different, the US companies close up
shop in the USA and open up in China. The only competition going on is wage
competition between US workers and Chinese workers to make the same
products for the same companies. The US worker can never undercut the
chinese worker. Especially with the chinese currancy fixed against the
dollar.

The whole set up is so slanted in China's favor, only someone entirely
ignorant of the details or a complete moron would call it 'free trade'.

No, that applies to you. You exhibit classic mercantilist ignorance.

Not my fault I know details you don't.

Brent P wrote:
In article . com, Leif Erikson wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article . com, wrote:

You just stated that the number is meaningless, and in the sense that the
currancy is not related to anything real, you're correct. Any number of
games can be played with it.

The number is not meaningless. It's very meaningful if used and
compared with other relevant economic statistics, like the size of the
economy.

Comparing debt to the size of the economy is just a feel good for now
measure

No. It's the correct way to analyze the national debt. It is
accurately indicative of the ability to pay and the effect on exchange
rates.

And the USA is going to pay the debt exactly when now? Or just revolve it
and revolve it until there's just too much....

How can there be "too much" if it remains a relatively constant share
of GDP? Unlike individuals, the government doesn't die. It will
always have the ability to pay off old debt and issue new.

Like most economic illiterates, you project what you think of as
prudent personal financial behavior onto the government, but the
government doesn't resemble an individual at all.

The government is constantly spending money on capital goods - bridges,
ports, airports, military hardware, etc. - and those goods are not
going to be consumed all in one period. Thus, it doesn't make sense to
pay for them all in one period, either. People will be "consuming"
nuclear submarines and other things for many years to come; there's no
reason they shouldn't be paying for them for the duration of the goods'
service.

Brent P wrote:
In article . com, Leif Erikson wrote:
Brent P wrote:

Why don't you pay attention to people from the World Bank, Federal
Reserve, etc and so on if you don't believe me?

I do. They unanimously say that trade is beneficial.

They unanimously feel the need to breath too.
I've also heard that they believe the sky is blue.

You ignorantly pretended in your comment that some among them would
condemn trade. That was stupid of you.


So you want to make the debt smaller by inflating the currancy.

The real value of the debt is what matters.

And one reduces the real value with inflation.

At any given moment, little economic illiterate, the real value of both
the debt and GDP are pretty much fixed. It's the ratio of debt to GDP
that matters, not the absolute amount of debt.

Why don't you ask some of those economists and bankers you foolishly
invoked above?


That appears to be what is being done.

That is not what's being done.

Doubling the money supply in shorter and shorter periods of time is what
is being done.

No, the money supply is *not* being doubled in "shorter and shorter"
periods of time.


If your parents earned $10,000 a year
in 1950 and had a $20,000 mortgage on a house, and if your earn
$100,000 a year and have a $200,000 mortgage on a comparable house, and
if the price level today is 10 times what it was in 1950, then you're
in the same financial position regarding housing as your parents were.

In reality, people are making more like $50K a year and the house is
closer to $300,000 but hey,

In certain parts of the country, house prices have increased in
relative terms. So what? That reflects land scarcity in places where
lots of people still very much want to live. It's not a macroeconomic
problem. Someone in Des Moines whose house value hasn't changed much
over 20 years in real terms is not concerned and should not be
concerned with house prices in Los Angeles.


But work as slaves... like in china.

No one in the U.S. is working as a slave.

Just wait. Unless the wage competition stops, that's where we'll end up.

No, chicken little - you are wrong. You have nothing - no theory, no
facts - to back up your alarmist statement.


Nothing in that page indicates any disagreement.

Nahh... he's only predicting far more gloom far sooner than I... that is
if you listened to him recently.

Not in that page you foolishly cited, he isn't. If you're going to
cite a source, twit, you ought at least to be sure that it supports
what you're saying. That page does not.


And do you think you'd find them at those prices if you eliminated
foreign competition?

Strawman.

No, not in the least. It's a legitimate question, and you whiffed on
it.

No, it's introducing arguments and assigning them to me through a
question.

No, it isn't. You clearly don't understand what "strawman" means.


It's a loaded question

That's something different.


asking me to defend a point of view I
did not take.

No, he did not. Now, you're lying. Implicit in your babbitry about
prices and competition is that you expect you would *still* find low
prices on U.S. manufactures even in the absence of foreign competition.
His question was,

And do you think you'd find them at those prices if you eliminated
foreign competition?

It's a legitimate question - no strawman.


There is no such thing as free trade.

There is more free trade and less free trade. We generally live in a
period of more free trade.

So what about china's domestic content laws? Doesn't seem like free trade
to me.

And there's plenty of protectionism built into U.S. laws, too.
Nonetheless, today is a freer trading period than, say, 30 years ago.


You don't seem to grasp the whole picture. Guess who's going to be
building Airbus aircraft? Guess... you think any job is safe? You're
deluding yourself. It's not just no-skill low-skill or 'dirty-jobs' that
are going to china. In fact, with the manufactruring now much of the
engineering is going too...

The knowledge drain from the US to China has been monumental as well. US
company starts manufacturing over there, next thing they know they have a
new competitor using everything they learned from the US company.

This is the same tired, stale, discredited crap that was said 20 and 30
years ago about Japan. Japan has been mired in stagnation since 1990.

There was no mass relocation of US company facilities to Japan.

There was a global shift of manufacturing from the U.S. to Japan, and
then on to Korea and Taiwan and some of the other Asian tigers. How
much steel was produced in the U.S. in 1965, and how much in 1980?

You aren't whining about the ownership of the factories, dummy - you're
complaining about the nationality and location of the workers.


The Japanese companies started selling their goods in the USA and made a
better product with more or less equal footing with regard to labor and
environmental regulations.

No, it was quite different at first.

The fact is, the gist of your complaint about China - "knowledge
drain", jobs relocating - was said about Japan as well. The
purchasing-power-parity per capita income of Japan has shrunk relative
to America's since 1990.


There are *always* gains from exchange - always. China may well master
some manufacturing techniques that we pioneer. No big deal. The U.S.
will continue to have a comparative advantage in activities that
require a highly skilled and knowledgeable workforce for decades to
come.

Spoken like someone who has never been in the trenches of it.

non sequitur


What works is a free economy.

There is no such thing.

Yes, there is.

There are various levels of regulation, taxation, etc, there is no 'free'.

As with trade, there are more and less market oriented economies. Ours
is relatively more market oriented. It's a good thing.


And in that scenario, each country
makes products that fit their workforce and capabilities. Everyone
made your argument 40 years ago, when Japan was the boogey man. Then
is was supposed to be Taiwan that was going to ruin us all. Then
Korea. Funny how we are still here and by any reasonable
interpretation of actual economic statistics, we're doing quite well.

Japan was never a boogey man.

Yes, they most certainly were. You're too young to remember it.

I remeber it quite well. Japanese companies imported goods of various
quality levels with great success as many US companies did not rise to the
new competition. Some went out of business because they didn't make a
good enough product. China is entirely different, the US companies close up
shop in the USA and open up in China.

When are you going to learn that it DOES NOT MATTER if it's U.S.
companies or Chinese (or Japanese) companies operating the overseas
factories? The effect is the same, then and now: manufacturing jobs
going overseas, service jobs increasing here. Understand, kid, that
"service jobs" includes financial services, media content development,
the *design* of the goods (that foreigners will manufacture), and all
kinds of other things. They are higher paid than the mfg. jobs that
have fled.

Mfg is *so* 20th century, kid. Get with the times.