wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:24:21 -0500, HeyBub
wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:


Heh,these days,$800 is NOT a "top of the line" table saw.
also,a $99 table saws will not give an accurate cut.

Maybe. My definition or "accurate" is "good enough for its intended
purpose."

A $99 saw WILL give an accurate cut. Precision is, however, another
matter. Here's the difference:

"The moon is 240,000 miles from the earth" is an accurate
statement, though not very precise.

"The moon is, at this instant, 238,857.7002 miles from the earth"
is a precise statement - and also accurate.

Now I bought a $99 table saw for the express purpose of ripping
laminate to make the stuff fit the width of the floor. The saw was
accurate to at least 1/4", which was all the precision I required.

I've since used the saw for all manner of worthwhile projects:
Cutting junk into pieces big enough to fit in the garbage can,
putting points on tomato stakes, trimming fence boards to fit
around a tree, etc. I assure you, it was accurate enough for all
those endeavors.


That is a lousy explaination of precision vs. accuracy.


I shoot some arrows into a target:

situation 1) they are all over the place: neither accurate or
precise. situation 2) they are all within an inch of each other, but
10" from the bullseye: the shots are precise, but not accurate
situation 3) they are scattered around the bullseye: accurate, not
precise
situation 4) they are all in the bullseye: accurate and precise.

My dictionary says they mean the same thing. Pretty much. Kinda'.

That's accurate, but not precise.

K wrote:

My best story happened over 20 years ago. I found an electric
guitar, a Fender Jaguar, at a yard sale. I had one of those back in
the sixties and always liked it, but mine was stolen. I bought the
one at the yard sale for $10, and not in half-bad condition. At the
time, we were paying an art student to do a portrait of the kids, and
had agreed on a price of $300. When he saw that guitar, he said he'd
take that instead of the money.
That portrait is now one of our most-loved possessions, but I don't
have the final bragging rights. That artist put a psychedelic paint
job on the guitar and sold it to a professional musician for $700. The
going rate for an old 60's Jaguar like that is now well over 1K,
so there are a lot of winners in this little remembrance.



Sounds like the Canadian dude who recently started with a paper clip and
kept trading up 'til he got a house.

In article ,
dgk wrote:

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:08:47 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Change you can believe in. Fast track to government take
over.

I believe in my government - I own part of it. I have no faith in
corporations that exist only to enrich themselves. Given the choice,
and that is the choice, I'll take the government.

Sorry you don't believe in our government. Perhaps you'd be happier
somewhere else.

How about governments (or at least legislatures) who exist only to
enrich themselves. Think buildings, roads, etc., named after them,
campaign and other contributions, power and other enrichments. At least
with public corporations I have the opportunity (through stock ownership
and dividends) to siphon off some of that enrichment.
I always thought the America Love it or Leave it campaign was
stupid, nothing changed my mind here.

--
The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every action
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

When a corporation decides to change policy, such as raise
prices. you can usually go some where else. Don't like
Walmart? Buy at Target, instead.

When a government decides to raise taxes, there is little
you can do about it. Governments also have men with guns who
will put you in handcuffs, and take you to jail for non
payment.

I'd rather have runaway corporations.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"dgk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:08:47 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Change you can believe in. Fast track to government take
over.

I believe in my government - I own part of it. I have no
faith in
corporations that exist only to enrich themselves. Given the
choice,
and that is the choice, I'll take the government.

Sorry you don't believe in our government. Perhaps you'd be
happier
somewhere else.

Goodwin was a good for nothing Nazi.

(Don't thank me; I'm a professional at this.)

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...

The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a
principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every
action
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 18:38:14 -0400, "L. Guteireze"
wrote:

Greetings

I'm retired from the construction industry, but not yet retired.

We live in a neighborhood, where people help their neighbors, we have
neighborhood cookouts & such. Though retired from construction, people
still ask me to repair this or that, some drywall work, odd job etc. I
always attempt to help people out, and if I find it's going to be a project
which will take time, I refer them to a contact. When I do work, its for a
modest charge, because I no longer hold a license, or carry insurance.

A younger couple moved into the neighborhood. They wanted a deck & patio
door replaced. After asking around, a few neighbors pointed them my way.
Being up front, I told them I would _help_, but wouldn't give them a price
on anything.

They came up with a 14'x16' deck design, I drew it up, so they could get a
permit. I set up batter boards and strung it out for the post holes (6 of
them). The deck was going over part of a concrete patio, so I had him rent
a concrete saw to remove where 4 holes were going to be placed. I cut out 4
areas 12"x12" for these holes. My first sign this guy was cheap, was when
he started bitching about how much the saw cost along with the blade. I
helped the fella run the auger, called to have the holes inspected, poured
the concrete, set the beams & all floor joists. He wanted to install the
flooring himself, and I showed him how to do some railing, because he
wanted a built in gate within the railing. When it came time for the steps,
I figured them out & cut them for him. After the deck was completed, his
wife started complaining the deck was too _small_. It was their design,
with them saying how big they wanted it.

For the patio door, I still have aluminum coil stock, and an aluminum brake
to bend for flashing under the new door, and on top for a _z_ flashing. I
set the french doors, which he & his dad were the helpers.

So he says he will have a cook out when it's all done. I never discussed
getting paid, and I really don't want a dime for it. He said he will have a
cook out when everything was done. Well, he did, several of them, and
didn't invite myself or my family to join. He didn't invite anyone in the
neighborhood, just some drunken _friends_ from his old neighborhood. This
was last year when the work was completed. I just wonder where these
friends were, when the work was being done.

Fast forward to this year. He wanted to borrow my sawzall, I told him I
don't loan tools.

Now my lawnmower recently died. This guy bought a new Scag zero turn this
year. He seen my brother bring over his mower for me to use. The guy walked
over, said I should have asked him, for he would cut my yard for a mere $30
a pop. I was totally stunned, he would even suggest he would charge me. The
fella doesn't cut grass for a living, this is his toy, and I know it was
expensive, but geez. Not only that, several people in the neighborhood have
different companies cut their yards for $20, and all these lots are similar
in size.

Am I getting a taste of the "me" generation?

I know, I should just get over it.



When my neighbors found out I can repair computers, networks, or
software I got several requests. I don't mind helping out, but
nothing more than an hour. For $30 to mow is cheap, but for that
particular neighbor there would be a $50 bench charge to look at their
computer (other neighbors are free). I have said more than once, "I
don't loan tools, but maybe you can check at Home Depot or Lowes."
They usually don't ask again. My father painted all his tools bright
pink and nobody asked to borrow them.

In article ,
"K" wrote:

The going rate for
an old 60's Jaguar like that is now well over 1K

Not with an amateur psychedelic paint job on it, though.

"L. Guteireze" wrote in message

...Am I getting a taste of the "me" generation?


I was going to say just that^

I get amused by these people they are so self centered these days. I have a
young friend who wanted to borrow an instructional video from me. He wanted
me to bring it to him! Out of curiosity I did so. I said he could borrow it
for 2 weeks only as I needed it. 3 months later he finally called and said I
COULD COME PICK UP MY VIDEO as he was done using it!

Then another one frequently calls me because I have a truck and wants me to
pick up stuff which will fit in their Suburban. They don't want to get their
vehicle dirty. They NEVER offer to pay me for gas or my time. Then I have
spent all day at their house helping them with projects (free) and they
NEVER offer me anything to drink or eat.

Anyway I'm learning the meaning of the phrase "You have to give to receive".

These people are doing absolutely no giving and the receiving part has come
to an end!

On Jun 3, 11:05*am, "Bill" wrote:
"L. Guteireze" *wrote in message

...Am I getting a taste of the "me" generation?

I was going to say just that^

I get amused by these people they are so self centered these days. I have a
young friend who wanted to borrow an instructional video from me. He wanted
me to bring it to him! Out of curiosity I did so. I said he could borrow it
for 2 weeks only as I needed it. 3 months later he finally called and said I
COULD COME PICK UP MY VIDEO as he was done using it!

Then another one frequently calls me because I have a truck and wants me to
pick up stuff which will fit in their Suburban. They don't want to get their
vehicle dirty. They NEVER offer to pay me for gas or my time. Then I have
spent all day at their house helping them with projects (free) and they
NEVER offer me anything to drink or eat.

The real question is, why do you keep doing it? Sounds like you
need each other.






Anyway I'm learning the meaning of the phrase "You have to give to receive".

These people are doing absolutely no giving and the receiving part has come
to an end!

dgk wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:08:47 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Change you can believe in. Fast track to government take
over.

I believe in my government - I own part of it. I have no faith in
corporations that exist only to enrich themselves. Given the choice,
and that is the choice, I'll take the government.

Sorry you don't believe in our government. Perhaps you'd be happier
somewhere else.

Private enterprise creates wealth; governments destroy wealth.

The commercial mindset depends upon voluntary contracts and eschews force.
Unfortunately, governments must exist to compel compliance with these
voluntary contracts - as such, governments are a cost of doing business
(like giving away paper bags). The only private business that has the
wherewithal to compel compliance is the Mafia.

As for corporations enriching themselves, they don't. They don't take the
money and put it in a mattress or destroy it, they use it to create jobs and
more wealth. It is governments that do the equivalent of burning money.

There is almost nothing that private enterprise can't do cheaper than a
government. Military? Most wars have been fought by mercenaries or militias.
If we need an army, we could hire one. Police? There are FAR more private
security guards in my city than cops. Fire protection? 85% of America's fire
fighters are volunteers. And what has any branch of government ever done
regarding bubble-baths or bee-bites?

Even Walmart (according to one study funded by Walmart) has done more to
improve the standard of living for lower and middle-class people than all
the government programs combined (food stamps, AFDC, Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). "...Wal-Mart saved American consumers $236
billion in 2004, or $2,239 for the average American household..."
http://www.manufacturingnews.com/new...09/furman.html

Heck, just today, a study was released showing the presence of a Walmart
reduces obesity among its patrons!
http://boards.ign.com/current_events.../180289454/p1/

No, as George Will once said: "Government should protect the borders and
deliver the mail. When they prove competent at those tasks, we might trust
them with something else."

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:




Heh,these days,$800 is NOT a "top of the line" table saw.
also,a $99 table saws will not give an accurate cut.

Maybe. My definition or "accurate" is "good enough for its intended
purpose."

A $99 saw WILL give an accurate cut. Precision is, however, another matter.
Here's the difference:

"The moon is 240,000 miles from the earth" is an accurate statement, though
not very precise.

"The moon is, at this instant, 238,857.7002 miles from the earth" is a
precise statement - and also accurate.

Now I bought a $99 table saw for the express purpose of ripping laminate to
make the stuff fit the width of the floor. The saw was accurate to at least
1/4", which was all the precision I required.

I've since used the saw for all manner of worthwhile projects: Cutting junk
into pieces big enough to fit in the garbage can, putting points on tomato
stakes, trimming fence boards to fit around a tree, etc. I assure you, it
was accurate enough for all those endeavors.

We used to make parts for Clenet Coachworks
(http://www.clenetcorner.com/)

These were thin panels of various shapes and sizes, which were then
covered with glove leather. The tolerance on all dimensions was + / _
..005". We did all the straight cuts on a cheap table saw. Smaller parts,
and curves of larger parts, were done with custom router guide fixtures
that we made from high density particle board.

You can use cheap tools to make quality stuff, it's just a bit more
tedious to set up. For example, we put a lighted magnifier over the saw,
raised the blade all the way up, and measured (using a machinist's
scale) from the *same* tooth on the blade to the fence, while that tooth
was positioned just above the table surface. (Having the blade all the
way up put those two measurements as far as possible from one another
along the length of the fence.)

As far as doing favors for friends and neighbors, I long ago adopted the
policy of not doing favors in my line of employment. IOW, I'll help you
fix your car, if fixing cars is not how I make my living.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
dgk wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:08:47 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Change you can believe in. Fast track to government take
over.

I believe in my government - I own part of it. I have no faith in
corporations that exist only to enrich themselves. Given the choice,
and that is the choice, I'll take the government.

Sorry you don't believe in our government. Perhaps you'd be happier
somewhere else.

Private enterprise creates wealth; governments destroy wealth.

The commercial mindset depends upon voluntary contracts and eschews force. Unfortunately,
governments must exist to compel compliance with these voluntary contracts - as such, governments
are a cost of doing business (like giving away paper bags). The only private business that has the
wherewithal to compel compliance is the Mafia.

As for corporations enriching themselves, they don't. They don't take the money and put it in a
mattress or destroy it, they use it to create jobs and more wealth. It is governments that do the
equivalent of burning money.

There is almost nothing that private enterprise can't do cheaper than a government. Military? Most
wars have been fought by mercenaries or militias. If we need an army, we could hire one. Police?
There are FAR more private security guards in my city than cops. Fire protection? 85% of America's
fire fighters are volunteers. And what has any branch of government ever done regarding
bubble-baths or bee-bites?

Even Walmart (according to one study funded by Walmart) has done more to improve the standard of
living for lower and middle-class people than all the government programs combined (food stamps,
AFDC, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). "...Wal-Mart saved American consumers $236
billion in 2004, or $2,239 for the average American household..."
http://www.manufacturingnews.com/new...09/furman.html

Heck, just today, a study was released showing the presence of a Walmart reduces obesity among its
patrons!
http://boards.ign.com/current_events.../180289454/p1/

No, as George Will once said: "Government should protect the borders and deliver the mail. When
they prove competent at those tasks, we might trust them with something else."

And I am a space alien from planet Zorgon!

Typing something in a usenet* forum does not automatically make it true.

EL

*Usenet, running over the Internet, which evolved from ARPANET, which was created at the request of,
and funded by... the US government.

"RicodJour" wrote:

Cheap saws often have fences that are impossible to align. If the
fence is not parallel to the saw blade the cut will be neither precise
nor accurate.

Actually, as long as the fence doesn't move about once it is set, it will be
perfectly precise.

You are, however, correct that the cut may not be accurate, if it is indeed
"impossible to align".

Jon

dgk wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:08:47 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Change you can believe in. Fast track to government take
over.

I believe in my government - I own part of it. I have no faith in
corporations that exist only to enrich themselves. Given the choice,
and that is the choice, I'll take the government.

Sorry you don't believe in our government. Perhaps you'd be happier
somewhere else.

So you like the "share the wealth idea" where some really smart people
in government will look out for you and control every aspect of
society? You might want to check into this but I believe it has been
tried before and imploded in the 90's

HeyBub wrote:
dgk wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:08:47 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Change you can believe in. Fast track to government take
over.
I believe in my government - I own part of it. I have no faith in
corporations that exist only to enrich themselves. Given the choice,
and that is the choice, I'll take the government.

Sorry you don't believe in our government. Perhaps you'd be happier
somewhere else.

Private enterprise creates wealth; governments destroy wealth.

The commercial mindset depends upon voluntary contracts and eschews force.
Unfortunately, governments must exist to compel compliance with these
voluntary contracts - as such, governments are a cost of doing business
(like giving away paper bags). The only private business that has the
wherewithal to compel compliance is the Mafia.

As for corporations enriching themselves, they don't. They don't take the
money and put it in a mattress or destroy it, they use it to create jobs and
more wealth. It is governments that do the equivalent of burning money.

That would be all cute and nice except for all of the pirates in the
banking/investment sector who recently demonstrated what greed due to
lack of regulation can do.


There is almost nothing that private enterprise can't do cheaper than a
government. Military? Most wars have been fought by mercenaries or militias.
If we need an army, we could hire one. Police? There are FAR more private
security guards in my city than cops. Fire protection? 85% of America's fire
fighters are volunteers. And what has any branch of government ever done
regarding bubble-baths or bee-bites?

Even Walmart (according to one study funded by Walmart) has done more to
improve the standard of living for lower and middle-class people than all
the government programs combined (food stamps, AFDC, Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). "...Wal-Mart saved American consumers $236
billion in 2004, or $2,239 for the average American household..."
http://www.manufacturingnews.com/new...09/furman.html

And it is ironic that most of the people who need to "save money at
walmart" need to do so because walmart was a major player in the loss of
their previous good jobs because they demanded lower and lower prices
from their suppliers causing most to go off shore.


Heck, just today, a study was released showing the presence of a Walmart
reduces obesity among its patrons!
http://boards.ign.com/current_events.../180289454/p1/

No, as George Will once said: "Government should protect the borders and
deliver the mail. When they prove competent at those tasks, we might trust
them with something else."

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

No, as George Will once said: "Government should protect the borders and
deliver the mail. When they prove competent at those tasks, we might trust
them with something else."

I'd expand it according to the PJ Principle.
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."

-P.J. O'Rourke

--
The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every action
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

Bill wrote:
"L. Guteireze" wrote in message
...Am I getting a taste of the "me" generation?


I was going to say just that^

I get amused by these people they are so self centered these days. I have a
young friend who wanted to borrow an instructional video from me. He wanted
me to bring it to him! Out of curiosity I did so. I said he could borrow it
for 2 weeks only as I needed it. 3 months later he finally called and said I
COULD COME PICK UP MY VIDEO as he was done using it!

Then another one frequently calls me because I have a truck and wants me to
pick up stuff which will fit in their Suburban. They don't want to get their
vehicle dirty. They NEVER offer to pay me for gas or my time. Then I have
spent all day at their house helping them with projects (free) and they
NEVER offer me anything to drink or eat.

Anyway I'm learning the meaning of the phrase "You have to give to receive".

These people are doing absolutely no giving and the receiving part has come
to an end!


One might ask why you continue to respond to "one way" ** people? Just
learn how to politely blow them off.



** "one way" is a name some friends gave to someone we know. He will
never ever do anything for anyone but will never hesitate to ask
everyone to do stuff for him.

On Jun 3, 12:57*pm, "Jon Danniken"
wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote:

Cheap saws often have fences that are impossible to align. *If the
fence is not parallel to the saw blade the cut will be neither precise
nor accurate.

Actually, as long as the fence doesn't move about once it is set, it will be
perfectly precise.

You are, however, correct that the cut may not be accurate, if it is indeed
"impossible to align".

Operative phrase being "as long as the fence doesn't move about". How
many cheap tablesaws have you encountered with good fences? In my ute
I'd dick around with the adjustment and the thing would still move.
You can't adjust a bad design and cheap construction to be quality.

But you already know that.

R

On 6/3/2009 12:05 PM, George wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

As for corporations enriching themselves, they don't. They don't take the
money and put it in a mattress or destroy it, they use it to create jobs and
more wealth. It is governments that do the equivalent of burning money.

That would be all cute and nice except for all of the pirates in the
banking/investment sector who recently demonstrated what greed due to
lack of regulation can do.

Of course, all those banks that were handing out mortgages to people
who couldn't afford them were doing so because the Government told them to.

And it is ironic that most of the people who need to "save money at
walmart" need to do so because walmart was a major player in the loss of
their previous good jobs because they demanded lower and lower prices
from their suppliers causing most to go off shore.

Again, follow the train a bit further... things are cheaper to
produce overseas because the US government makes it more expensive to do
business here.

Why do you think GM failed? GM's profit margin is so much smaller
than the competitions because of government regulation. And that's
before you even get into the price impact that unions have.

On 6/3/2009 12:05 PM, George wrote:
dgk wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:08:47 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Change you can believe in. Fast track to government take
over.

I believe in my government - I own part of it. I have no faith in
corporations that exist only to enrich themselves. Given the choice,
and that is the choice, I'll take the government.

Sorry you don't believe in our government. Perhaps you'd be happier
somewhere else.

So you like the "share the wealth idea" where some really smart people
in government will look out for you and control every aspect of
society? You might want to check into this but I believe it has been
tried before and imploded in the 90's

I'd even take Clinton over Obama. Hell, I might even take Carter over
Obama... Maybe. I'd have to think about that one.

A better example of socialism running amok would be your average
European nation. Like France, where people riot when the suggestion
that employers should be allowed to terminate poorly-performing workers,
or that they should have a longer-than 32 hour work week.

A better example of socialism running amok would be your average European
nation. Like France, where people riot when the suggestion that employers
should be allowed to terminate poorly-performing workers, or that they
should have a longer-than 32 hour work week.


just wait.....

In article ,
George wrote:



As for corporations enriching themselves, they don't. They don't take the
money and put it in a mattress or destroy it, they use it to create jobs
and
more wealth. It is governments that do the equivalent of burning money.

That would be all cute and nice except for all of the pirates in the
banking/investment sector who recently demonstrated what greed due to
lack of regulation can do.
I would submit that the greed involved was very much
government-induced. The great increases in executive (total) pay (and
interestingly enough many of the more serious scandals) began around
1993 and the passage of that year's Ombinus Budget Reconciliation Act.
One of the elements of this, according to the legislative record in
Congress, was an attempt to make executive more performance related
(anybody heard a call for that recently????). OBRA '93 made changes in
the tax law that capped deductibility for executive SALARY at $1
million, yet made it tax advantaged to the company to give stock options
and other similar "performance based" measures that would bring
executive's interests more in line with the interests of the stock
holders (heard that mantra again recently??)
According to a Congressional Research Service report, median CEO
total pay began its rise in 2003 (gee why is that an important date?).
However the rise wasn't all up and up, as median CEO pay fell around the
time of the tech bubble and resultant stock fall.
Between '95 and '05 medial salary increased only from $0.7 million to
$1 million (the deductible amount) while pay for performance (options,
bonuses, etc.) more than quadrupled.
What all of this boils down to is that the government had decided
that the majority of your pay will be related to performance, rational
economic behavior will be to maximize that part of your pay. The cover
originally given to the executives when the Congress made the changes in
tax law "to make the interests of the executives more in line with the
shareholders" gave some of those who might not have fudged the books the
rationalization to do so.
It wasn't greed so much as people doing exactly what the
Congressional policy told them to do.

--
The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every action
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

"Ryan P" wrote in message
...
On 6/3/2009 12:05 PM, George wrote:
Of course, all those banks that were handing out mortgages to people who couldn't afford them
were doing so because the Government told them to.
More Republican lies. The government regulations say the banks have to demonstrate that they are
willing to write loans for "disadvantaged groups" (minorities etc.) as much as for non-disadvantaged
groups. They had two options to do this: write more high-risk loans to members of disadvantaged
groups, or write fewer loans to members of non-disadvantaged groups. Because the first option was
more profitable (short-term), that's what they chose, and now we've seen the results.


And it is ironic that most of the people who need to "save money at
walmart" need to do so because walmart was a major player in the loss of
their previous good jobs because they demanded lower and lower prices
from their suppliers causing most to go off shore.

Again, follow the train a bit further... things are cheaper to produce overseas because the US
government makes it more expensive to do business here.

Why do you think GM failed? GM's profit margin is so much smaller than the competitions because
of government regulation. And that's before you even get into the price impact that unions have.
Wa-huh? Sorry, I call BS on this one too. Most of GM's competitors (Toyota, Honda, Nissan...) have
factories and offices in the USA and therefore are subject to exactly the SAME regulations as the
"domestic" makes. That is of course in addition to the vehicles they sell having to meet all the
same regulatory standards such as safety, emissions, and MPG. So in that way, the playing field is
completely level.

The unions, which HAVE had a crippling effect on the domestic auto industry, of course are not part
of the government. It's not hard to see that if the industry had been more regulated by the
government, the unions would not have gained as much power and the picture might be very different
right now.

EL

In article ,
"Eric" wrote:

"
were doing so because the Government told them to.
More Republican lies. The government regulations say the banks have to
demonstrate that they are
willing to write loans for "disadvantaged groups" (minorities etc.) as much
as for non-disadvantaged
groups. They had two options to do this: write more high-risk loans to
members of disadvantaged
groups, or write fewer loans to members of non-disadvantaged groups. Because
the first option was
more profitable (short-term), that's what they chose, and now we've seen the
results.
So, in otherwords, they followed the government's instructions
and got beat up for it. Seems like same outcome to me.





Wa-huh? Sorry, I call BS on this one too. Most of GM's competitors (Toyota,
Honda, Nissan...) have
factories and offices in the USA and therefore are subject to exactly the
SAME regulations as the
"domestic" makes. That is of course in addition to the vehicles they sell
having to meet all the
same regulatory standards such as safety, emissions, and MPG. So in that
way, the playing field is
completely level.
The competitors most have US ASSEMBLY plants. Much of the parts
that constitute the actual manufacturing are done outside the US and
outside of the regulations.


The unions, which HAVE had a crippling effect on the domestic auto industry,
of course are not part
of the government. It's not hard to see that if the industry had been more
regulated by the
government, the unions would not have gained as much power and the picture
might be very different
right now.

Which alternative universe are you living in?

--
The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every action
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

George wrote:

That would be all cute and nice except for all of the pirates in the
banking/investment sector who recently demonstrated what greed due to
lack of regulation can do.

1. Greed is good. The poor, for example, cannot contribute to charity.
2. It was social regulation that caused the financial sector failure. It
started with the Community Redevelopment Act under Carter, but the big
switch was thrown under Clinton in 1993 when loans to otherwise ineligible
borrowers were mandated by the government.

Aside from these two errors, your post is spot on.


And it is ironic that most of the people who need to "save money at
walmart" need to do so because walmart was a major player in the loss
of their previous good jobs because they demanded lower and lower
prices from their suppliers causing most to go off shore.

Sigh. Adam Smith settled this hash in 1776 with the publication of "The
Wealth of Nations." In a nutshell, nations and their people should do what
they do best and not try to protect inefficient jobs or industries. When
that happens, everybody prospers.

You really should try to keep up.

Just wanted to bring the subject line up to date. No need to thank
me.

R

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Eric" wrote:

"
were doing so because the Government told them to.
More Republican lies. The government regulations say the banks have to
demonstrate that they are
willing to write loans for "disadvantaged groups" (minorities etc.) as much
as for non-disadvantaged
groups. They had two options to do this: write more high-risk loans to
members of disadvantaged
groups, or write fewer loans to members of non-disadvantaged groups. Because
the first option was
more profitable (short-term), that's what they chose, and now we've seen the
results.
So, in otherwords, they followed the government's instructions
and got beat up for it. Seems like same outcome to me.
Not at all. The government mandated that specific requirements had to be met, *how* to meet the
requirements was left to the banks, and they had a number of options. Many banks chose an option
that was not in their long-term interest and suffered because of it. Other banks, which chose other
options, are still healthy.


Wa-huh? Sorry, I call BS on this one too. Most of GM's competitors (Toyota,
Honda, Nissan...) have
factories and offices in the USA and therefore are subject to exactly the
SAME regulations as the
"domestic" makes. That is of course in addition to the vehicles they sell
having to meet all the
same regulatory standards such as safety, emissions, and MPG. So in that
way, the playing field is
completely level.
The competitors most have US ASSEMBLY plants. Much of the parts
that constitute the actual manufacturing are done outside the US and
outside of the regulations.
Do you have any data to support that? Not that it really matters, if Toyota can assemble a car in
the US from foreign-made parts, GM is free to do the same. Whose fault is it that they chose not
to?

Oh by the way, should we consider exactly *why* foreign car companies are assembling cars in the US?
Does the threat of import tariffs imposed by the government ring a bell?


The unions, which HAVE had a crippling effect on the domestic auto industry,
of course are not part
of the government. It's not hard to see that if the industry had been more
regulated by the
government, the unions would not have gained as much power and the picture
might be very different
right now.

Which alternative universe are you living in?
One where facts weigh more than political dogma?

In article m,
"Eric" wrote:


Oh by the way, should we consider exactly *why* foreign car companies are
assembling cars in the US?
Does the threat of import tariffs imposed by the government ring a bell?

yeah. Long before they actually came over that was a dead horse. Most
did that related the strength or not of the UD$



The unions, which HAVE had a crippling effect on the domestic auto
industry,
of course are not part
of the government. It's not hard to see that if the industry had been
more
regulated by the
government, the unions would not have gained as much power and the picture
might be very different
right now.

Which alternative universe are you living in?
One where facts weigh more than political dogma?
Apparenlty not. First of all, can you point out even one time where
ANY party has gotten involved in stopping pay or other benefits? Can't.
What they do tend to get involved is in making sure unions
don't have to actually compete. Thus every government project is
required to be bid on a prevailing wage basis that always ends up being
union wages. Non-union shops are essentially not allowed to bid for
buildings, roads, etc., unless they want to give up the only major
advantage they have, lower wages.

--
The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every action
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

On 6/3/2009 12:51 PM, Eric wrote:
"Ryan wrote in message

Again, follow the train a bit further... things are cheaper to produce overseas because the US
government makes it more expensive to do business here.

Why do you think GM failed? GM's profit margin is so much smaller than the competitions because
of government regulation. And that's before you even get into the price impact that unions have.
Wa-huh? Sorry, I call BS on this one too. Most of GM's competitors (Toyota, Honda, Nissan...) have
factories and offices in the USA and therefore are subject to exactly the SAME regulations as the
"domestic" makes. That is of course in addition to the vehicles they sell having to meet all the
same regulatory standards such as safety, emissions, and MPG. So in that way, the playing field is
completely level.


Okay, I had it straight in my head, but I mixed two different points
together when typing them out. I concede I was unclear in my statement.
Let me expand:

Much of what the foreign automakers do is ASSEMBLE vehicles in the US,
not fully manufacture all the parts. Ford, GM, and Chrysler do as much
of that as they can, also, without running afoul of the Union, because
to do everything in the US is cost prohibitive.


The unions, which HAVE had a crippling effect on the domestic auto industry, of course are not part
of the government. It's not hard to see that if the industry had been more regulated by the
government, the unions would not have gained as much power and the picture might be very different
right now.

The more government regulations that are in effect, the less
innovative industry is, and the less productive it is. The level of
innovation and productivity is directly related to potential profit.

Government is like anti-matter to profit.

On 6/3/2009 1:48 PM, Eric wrote:

The competitors most have US ASSEMBLY plants. Much of the parts
that constitute the actual manufacturing are done outside the US and
outside of the regulations.
Do you have any data to support that? Not that it really matters, if Toyota can assemble a car in
the US from foreign-made parts, GM is free to do the same. Whose fault is it that they chose not
to?

Unions, for one. And actually, if you look at the documentation for
your vehicle, you'll see that many of their lines ARE merely assembled
in the US.


Oh by the way, should we consider exactly *why* foreign car companies are assembling cars in the US?
Does the threat of import tariffs imposed by the government ring a bell?

How about the logistics of shipping materials? If you are sourcing
SOME of the parts from the destination country, it makes more sense to
send everything there for assembly, rather than have items make multiple
trips across the ocean.

Of course, the use of tariffs is an admission that we can't be
cost-competitive in the first place.

The unions, which HAVE had a crippling effect on the domestic auto industry,
of course are not part
of the government. It's not hard to see that if the industry had been more
regulated by the
government, the unions would not have gained as much power and the picture
might be very different
right now.

Which alternative universe are you living in?
One where facts weigh more than political dogma?


Apparently, the side of the economic/political spectrum you stand on
determines what you consider facts vs political dogma.

clipped
As far as doing favors for friends and neighbors, I long ago adopted the
policy of not doing favors in my line of employment. IOW, I'll help you
fix your car, if fixing cars is not how I make my living.

Wow...I don't do favors in my former line of work (nursing), either.
Twice I weakened and recommended doctors, after some arm-twisting - once
to my best friend, once to my boss. My best friend had post-operative
hemorrhage. My boss and wife were expecting twins - one of them died at
birth.

Another time, I came on an accident scene on a vacation trip. Pulled
the car over, went over to one of the drivers who looked hurt. He was
wandering around aimlessly and rather stunned looking. Tried to get him
to lie down on the grass, but, as I soon discovered, he was drunk as a
skunk and not about to cooperate. Good thing - just as I turned to walk
away, I felt terrible burning on both my ankles. Got my intro to fire
ants that day. I should have knocked him down and stood on him a while )

wrote:
clipped
As far as doing favors for friends and neighbors, I long ago adopted
the policy of not doing favors in my line of employment. IOW, I'll
help you fix your car, if fixing cars is not how I make my living.

Wow...I don't do favors in my former line of work (nursing), either.
Twice I weakened and recommended doctors, after some arm-twisting -
once to my best friend, once to my boss. My best friend had
post-operative hemorrhage. My boss and wife were expecting twins -
one of them died at birth.

Heh! Now you've got an excuse. "..... Now do you REALLY want me to recommend
a physician?"

On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:44:21 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
clipped
As far as doing favors for friends and neighbors, I long ago adopted
the policy of not doing favors in my line of employment. IOW, I'll
help you fix your car, if fixing cars is not how I make my living.

Wow...I don't do favors in my former line of work (nursing), either.
Twice I weakened and recommended doctors, after some arm-twisting -
once to my best friend, once to my boss. My best friend had
post-operative hemorrhage. My boss and wife were expecting twins -
one of them died at birth.

Heh! Now you've got an excuse. "..... Now do you REALLY want me to recommend
a physician?"


I had a malcontent one day, demanding I get him a doctor.

"Sure, but he won't be the one you want to see"!!

So, how long did you let it go on?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Bill" wrote in message
...

I get amused by these people they are so self centered these
days. I have a
young friend who wanted to borrow an instructional video
from me. He wanted
me to bring it to him! Out of curiosity I did so. I said he
could borrow it
for 2 weeks only as I needed it. 3 months later he finally
called and said I
COULD COME PICK UP MY VIDEO as he was done using it!

Then another one frequently calls me because I have a truck
and wants me to
pick up stuff which will fit in their Suburban. They don't
want to get their
vehicle dirty. They NEVER offer to pay me for gas or my
time. Then I have
spent all day at their house helping them with projects
(free) and they
NEVER offer me anything to drink or eat.

Anyway I'm learning the meaning of the phrase "You have to
give to receive".

These people are doing absolutely no giving and the
receiving part has come
to an end!

Da, komrade. Fail! Fail! Nyet gud.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"George" wrote in message
...

So you like the "share the wealth idea" where some really
smart people
in government will look out for you and control every aspect
of
society? You might want to check into this but I believe it
has been
tried before and imploded in the 90's

In article ,
" wrote:

clipped
As far as doing favors for friends and neighbors, I long ago adopted the
policy of not doing favors in my line of employment. IOW, I'll help you
fix your car, if fixing cars is not how I make my living.

Wow...I don't do favors in my former line of work (nursing), either.

I was fortunate in working Psych because I coudl generally just say
whatever it was wasn't my specialty. Then add something about "Now if
(whatever is causing the problem) starts to talk to you, THEN I can help
you.

--
The inevitable Godwinization of Usenet threads is a principle
as immutable as Newton's Third Law meaning that, for every action
there is an equally disproportionate overreaction.

"benick" wrote

Well said...Some don't understand the difference between homeowner use
and cabinette making....LOL...

Bingo!

My table saw isn't a 99$ model but it isn't an 800$ one either. It's a
decent enough 200$ or so unit suitable for our needs. We are a mix and
match with some tools being quite cheap, and others being fairly close to
top of the line. Just depends on if we need the more advanced features or
not.

On Jun 1, 6:38*pm, "L. Guteireze" wrote:
Greetings

I'm retired from the construction industry, but not yet retired.

We live in a neighborhood, where people help their neighbors, we have
neighborhood cookouts & such. Though retired from construction, people
still ask me to repair this or that, some drywall work, odd job etc. I
always attempt to help people out, and if I find it's going to be a project
which will take time, I refer them to a contact. When I do work, its for a
modest charge, because I no longer hold a license, or carry insurance.

A younger couple moved into the neighborhood. They wanted a deck & patio
door replaced. After asking around, a few neighbors pointed them my way.
Being up front, I told them I would _help_, but wouldn't give them a price
on anything.

They came up with a 14'x16' deck design, I drew it up, so they could get a
permit. I set up batter boards and strung it out for the post holes (6 of
them). The deck was going over part of a concrete patio, so I had him rent
a concrete saw to remove where 4 holes were going to be placed. I cut out 4
areas 12"x12" for these holes. My first sign this guy was cheap, was when
he started bitching about how much the saw cost along with the blade. I
helped the fella run the auger, called to have the holes inspected, poured
the concrete, set the beams & all floor joists. He wanted to install the
flooring himself, and I showed him how to do some railing, because he
wanted a built in gate within the railing. When it came time for the steps,
I figured them out & cut them for him. After the deck was completed, his
wife started complaining the deck was too _small_. It was their design,
with them saying how big they wanted it.

For the patio door, I still have aluminum coil stock, and an aluminum brake
to bend for flashing under the new door, and on top for a _z_ flashing. I
set the french doors, which he & his dad were the helpers.

So he says he will have a cook out when it's all done. I never discussed
getting paid, and I really don't want a dime for it. He said he will have a
cook out when everything was done. Well, he did, several of them, and
didn't invite myself or my family to join. He didn't invite anyone in the
neighborhood, just some drunken _friends_ from his old neighborhood. This
was last year when the work was completed. I just wonder where these
friends were, when the work was being done.

Fast forward to this year. He wanted to borrow my sawzall, I told him I
don't loan tools.

Now my lawnmower recently died. This guy bought a new Scag zero turn this
year. He seen my brother bring over his mower for me to use. The guy walked
over, said I should have asked him, for he would cut my yard for a mere $30
a pop. I was totally stunned, he would even suggest he would charge me. The
fella doesn't cut grass for a living, this is his toy, and I know it was
expensive, but geez. Not only that, several people in the neighborhood have
different companies cut their yards for $20, and all these lots are similar
in size.

Am I getting a taste of the "me" generation?

I know, I should just get over it.

My wife's late aunt (a missionary) used to say you're earning "crowns
in heaven".

I think it's harder to accept selfishness in people when you're a
selfless person, because you hope you would be a good influence on
others. But you don't know what kind of seeds you have planted in this
couple or in others by your being willing to give of your time and
efforts and talent. There's a cumulative effect here, and at some
point we can hope/pray that this couple will have that epiphany, that
"ah-hah!" moment when they see what others have done for them and what
they've refused to do for others.

Keep hope alive!

Kyle wrote:
On Jun 1, 6:38 pm, "L. Guteireze" wrote:
Greetings

I'm retired from the construction industry, but not yet retired.

We live in a neighborhood, where people help their neighbors, we have
neighborhood cookouts & such. Though retired from construction, people
still ask me to repair this or that, some drywall work, odd job etc. I
always attempt to help people out, and if I find it's going to be a project
which will take time, I refer them to a contact. When I do work, its for a
modest charge, because I no longer hold a license, or carry insurance.

A younger couple moved into the neighborhood. They wanted a deck & patio
door replaced. After asking around, a few neighbors pointed them my way.
Being up front, I told them I would _help_, but wouldn't give them a price
on anything.

They came up with a 14'x16' deck design, I drew it up, so they could get a
permit. I set up batter boards and strung it out for the post holes (6 of
them). The deck was going over part of a concrete patio, so I had him rent
a concrete saw to remove where 4 holes were going to be placed. I cut out 4
areas 12"x12" for these holes. My first sign this guy was cheap, was when
he started bitching about how much the saw cost along with the blade. I
helped the fella run the auger, called to have the holes inspected, poured
the concrete, set the beams & all floor joists. He wanted to install the
flooring himself, and I showed him how to do some railing, because he
wanted a built in gate within the railing. When it came time for the steps,
I figured them out & cut them for him. After the deck was completed, his
wife started complaining the deck was too _small_. It was their design,
with them saying how big they wanted it.

For the patio door, I still have aluminum coil stock, and an aluminum brake
to bend for flashing under the new door, and on top for a _z_ flashing. I
set the french doors, which he & his dad were the helpers.

So he says he will have a cook out when it's all done. I never discussed
getting paid, and I really don't want a dime for it. He said he will have a
cook out when everything was done. Well, he did, several of them, and
didn't invite myself or my family to join. He didn't invite anyone in the
neighborhood, just some drunken _friends_ from his old neighborhood. This
was last year when the work was completed. I just wonder where these
friends were, when the work was being done.

Fast forward to this year. He wanted to borrow my sawzall, I told him I
don't loan tools.

Now my lawnmower recently died. This guy bought a new Scag zero turn this
year. He seen my brother bring over his mower for me to use. The guy walked
over, said I should have asked him, for he would cut my yard for a mere $30
a pop. I was totally stunned, he would even suggest he would charge me. The
fella doesn't cut grass for a living, this is his toy, and I know it was
expensive, but geez. Not only that, several people in the neighborhood have
different companies cut their yards for $20, and all these lots are similar
in size.

Am I getting a taste of the "me" generation?

I know, I should just get over it.

My wife's late aunt (a missionary) used to say you're earning "crowns
in heaven".

I think it's harder to accept selfishness in people when you're a
selfless person, because you hope you would be a good influence on
others. But you don't know what kind of seeds you have planted in this
couple or in others by your being willing to give of your time and
efforts and talent. There's a cumulative effect here, and at some
point we can hope/pray that this couple will have that epiphany, that
"ah-hah!" moment when they see what others have done for them and what
they've refused to do for others.

Keep hope alive!

You know what the odd thing is, is I'm fairly handy (ought to be
obvious, as often people will see me on a Saturday morning underneath
some vehicle or other - when it's not raining at least) but I can't
remember any of my neighbors asking me to help them with anything around
the house. I'd be happy to help, at least until I start feeling used...
we all have to save money for stuff we CAN'T do ourselves these days...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"Bill" wrote

Then another one frequently calls me because I have a truck and wants me
to pick up stuff which will fit in their Suburban. They don't want to get
their vehicle dirty. They NEVER offer to pay me for gas or my time. Then I
have spent all day at their house helping them with projects (free) and
they NEVER offer me anything to drink or eat.

Good lord! I don't have a truck. I do have friends of my husbands who do
and Don pays them for the gas (actually over pays as these are 3.5 mile
round trips to local big box store and he passes them 10$ for gas). The
main one who helps us with truck time, also gets free help from Don to work
on their boat and various home projects. Technically if i were keeping
score, they are slightly behind but that's only because they needed help
putting in a new fence recently and it took 3 days.

Anyway I'm learning the meaning of the phrase "You have to give to
receive".

Grin, I get great service from various contractors. Reason is simple. I'm
a dang good cook and I feed'em. I even do specialty dishes if any need (or
just desire) to avoid certain foods. Don's the same way. He'll get the
munchies and ask any workers (if we have any) what they'd like after
mentioning what was handy, then fix'em up a meal.

The last time the plummer was here (tub install) it was fried rice with
shrimp and vegetables. For the sunroom install team it was various things
from pulled BBQ pork, to home made pizza, to chicken adobo, or fresh made
*real* chicken stew/soup with home made dumplings. Fresh bread from the
breadmaker daily (Come'on guys, take the rest home and here's the baggies
and i'll make more tomorrow. What type would you like tomorrow? I got rye,
all white, part whole wheat, all whole wheat recipes and ingredients so let
me know before ya go and I'll do a timed bake so it's ready about 11am).

Oh the chimney repair team? One of'em only eats fish for his meat and the
other one won't touch it so we go salmon or tilapia (butter fried with
carmelized onions and green bell peppers) for the one and a pork, chicken,
or beef bit for the other (various dishes there but all simple and tasty).
They both love spinach, carrots, asparagus, green beans, and cabbage so the
side is easy. Hehe they time my cleaning jobs for when I'm home and at
lunch time.