"The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L
Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable
light bulb... Now the winning bulb is on the market. The price is $50."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...D0R_story.html

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
"The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the
"L Prize," for any manufacturer that could create a "green" but affordable
light bulb... Now the winning bulb is on the market. The price is $50."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...D0R_story.html

But check Amazon and other on-line retailers. The $50 drops to around $30.
You're also paying a premium for the L-Prize name magic. Choose GE's
version which has the same ratings, dimmability and warranty and save
40-50%. Check out http://store.earthled.com/ for Energy Star LEDs all of
which have warranties.

Tomsic

The target price was $22, but they settled on a $50 bulb. Does that sound
like a government program?

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

"Tomsic" wrote in message ...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
"The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the
"L Prize," for any manufacturer that could create a "green" but affordable
light bulb... Now the winning bulb is on the market. The price is $50."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...D0R_story.html

But check Amazon and other on-line retailers. The $50 drops to around $30.
You're also paying a premium for the L-Prize name magic. Choose GE's
version which has the same ratings, dimmability and warranty and save
40-50%. Check out http://store.earthled.com/ for Energy Star LEDs all of
which have warranties.

Tomsic

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

The target price was $22, but they settled on a $50 bulb. Does that
sound like a government program?

From HeyBub's link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...nt-subsidized-
green-light-bulb-carries-costly-price-tag/2012/03/07/gIQAFxOD0R_story.html

"Energy legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2007 introduced a
ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs, covering traditional 100-watt
bulbs this year. Sales of traditional 75-watt incandescents will be
prohibited next year, and 60-watt incandescents will go after that."


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 09 Mar 2012 16:46:52 GMT, Han wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

The target price was $22, but they settled on a $50 bulb. Does that
sound like a government program?

From HeyBub's link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...nt-subsidized-
green-light-bulb-carries-costly-price-tag/2012/03/07/gIQAFxOD0R_story.html

"Energy legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2007 introduced a
ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs, covering traditional 100-watt
bulbs this year. Sales of traditional 75-watt incandescents will be
prohibited next year, and 60-watt incandescents will go after that."

....and your point is?

" wrote in
:

On 09 Mar 2012 16:46:52 GMT, Han wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

The target price was $22, but they settled on a $50 bulb. Does that
sound like a government program?

From HeyBub's link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...nt-subsidized-
green-light-bulb-carries-costly-price-tag/2012/03/07/gIQAFxOD0R_story.h
tml

"Energy legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2007
introduced a ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs, covering
traditional 100-watt bulbs this year. Sales of traditional 75-watt
incandescents will be prohibited next year, and 60-watt incandescents
will go after that."

...and your point is?

You're highly intelligent. I'm sure you can figure it out.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
" wrote in
:

On 09 Mar 2012 16:46:52 GMT, Han wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

The target price was $22, but they settled on a $50 bulb. Does that
sound like a government program?

From HeyBub's link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...nt-subsidized-
green-light-bulb-carries-costly-price-tag/2012/03/07/gIQAFxOD0R_story.h
tml

"Energy legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2007
introduced a ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs, covering
traditional 100-watt bulbs this year. Sales of traditional 75-watt
incandescents will be prohibited next year, and 60-watt
incandescents will go after that."

...and your point is?

You're highly intelligent. I'm sure you can figure it out.

I can. Bush did not pay an entity (Phillips, Solandra, et al) bucket loads
of taxpayer cash to develop something nobody is wants or is willing to pay
for.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Han wrote:
" wrote in
:

On 09 Mar 2012 16:46:52 GMT, Han wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

The target price was $22, but they settled on a $50 bulb. Does that
sound like a government program?

From HeyBub's link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...nt-subsidized-
green-light-bulb-carries-costly-price-tag/2012/03/07/gIQAFxOD0R_story.h
tml

"Energy legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2007
introduced a ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs, covering
traditional 100-watt bulbs this year. Sales of traditional 75-watt
incandescents will be prohibited next year, and 60-watt
incandescents will go after that."

...and your point is?

You're highly intelligent. I'm sure you can figure it out.

I can. Bush did not pay an entity (Phillips, Solandra, et al) bucket loads
of taxpayer cash to develop something nobody is wants or is willing to pay
for.

but he of course did set in motion a set of circumstances that did, didn't he?

On Mar 9, 9:01*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Han wrote:
" wrote in
:

On 09 Mar 2012 16:46:52 GMT, Han wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
m:

The target price was $22, but they settled on a $50 bulb. Does that
sound like a government program?

From HeyBub's link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...nt-subsidized-
green-light-bulb-carries-costly-price-tag/2012/03/07/gIQAFxOD0R_story..h
tml

"Energy legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2007
introduced a ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs, covering
traditional 100-watt bulbs this year. Sales of traditional 75-watt
incandescents will be prohibited next year, and 60-watt
incandescents will go after that."

...and your point is?

You're highly intelligent. *I'm sure you can figure it out.

I can. Bush did not pay an entity (Phillips, Solandra, et al) bucket loads
of taxpayer cash to develop something nobody is wants or is willing to pay
for.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well you can buy American or you can buy Chinese.
Patriotic Americans wil buy American and support American jobs.

Republicans will buy Chinese and sell America down the river.
Which has been the problem for the last ten or fifteen years.
Support child/slave labour in China and fall in with the Chinese plot
to destroy America..
Selfish greedy *******s can't see beyond the end of their noses.

harry wrote:

Well you can buy American or you can buy Chinese.
Patriotic Americans wil buy American and support American jobs.

Republicans will buy Chinese and sell America down the river.
Which has been the problem for the last ten or fifteen years.
Support child/slave labour in China and fall in with the Chinese plot
to destroy America..
Selfish greedy *******s can't see beyond the end of their noses.

Silly idea. Your idea, taken to its logical conclusion, means that one
should buy only those things produced by one's neighbors on the same block.

I remind you, once again, you should study one of your countryman's
contribution to economics: "An Inquiry Into the Wealth of Nations," by Adam
Smith. In a nutshell, he said a country should produce what it can produce
best and most cheaply, then trade with other nations. To be self-sufficient
in all things is a fool's errand and guaranteed to produce ruination.

If I give you five dollars for a tool, it's because I have more dollars than
tools. You accept the trade because you have more tools than dollars. We
both leave the transaction wealthier than before we entered into it.

The same for nations.

We sell a Boeing 737 to Japan Airways because their dollars are worth more
to us than the airplane. Likewise, to the Japs, the airplane is worth more
than the dollars used to buy it. Both nations are wealthier as a result.

On 3/10/2012 7:20 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:

Well you can buy American or you can buy Chinese.
Patriotic Americans wil buy American and support American jobs.

Republicans will buy Chinese and sell America down the river.
Which has been the problem for the last ten or fifteen years.
Support child/slave labour in China and fall in with the Chinese plot
to destroy America..
Selfish greedy *******s can't see beyond the end of their noses.

Silly idea. Your idea, taken to its logical conclusion, means that one
should buy only those things produced by one's neighbors on the same block.

I remind you, once again, you should study one of your countryman's
contribution to economics: "An Inquiry Into the Wealth of Nations," by Adam
Smith. In a nutshell, he said a country should produce what it can produce
best and most cheaply, then trade with other nations. To be self-sufficient
in all things is a fool's errand and guaranteed to produce ruination.

If I give you five dollars for a tool, it's because I have more dollars than
tools. You accept the trade because you have more tools than dollars. We
both leave the transaction wealthier than before we entered into it.

The same for nations.

We sell a Boeing 737 to Japan Airways because their dollars are worth more
to us than the airplane. Likewise, to the Japs, the airplane is worth more
than the dollars used to buy it. Both nations are wealthier as a result.


The flaw in your reasoning is that you ignore the fact that Adam Smith
assumed a fair competition, a level playing field, and wrote before
unions were strong and raised the American worker's benefit package to
well above the slave labor wages still paid today in the far East. You
shouldn't directly apply pre-20th macroeconomics to 21st century conditions.

On Mar 10, 12:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Well you can buy American or you can buy Chinese.
Patriotic Americans wil buy American and support American jobs.

Republicans will buy Chinese and sell America down the river.
Which has been the problem for the last ten or fifteen years.
Support child/slave labour in China and fall in with the Chinese plot
to destroy America..
Selfish greedy *******s can't see beyond the end of their noses.

Silly idea. Your idea, taken to its logical conclusion, means that one
should buy only those things produced by one's neighbors on the same block.

I remind you, once again, you should study one of your countryman's
contribution to economics: "An Inquiry Into the Wealth of Nations," by Adam
Smith. In a nutshell, he said a country should produce what it can produce
best and most cheaply, then trade with other nations. To be self-sufficient
in all things is a fool's errand and guaranteed to produce ruination.

If I give you five dollars for a tool, it's because I have more dollars than
tools. You accept the trade because you have more tools than dollars. We
both leave the transaction wealthier than before we entered into it.

The same for nations.

We sell a Boeing 737 to Japan Airways because their dollars are worth more
to us than the airplane. Likewise, to the Japs, the airplane is worth more
than the dollars used to buy it. Both nations are wealthier as a result.

It is economic warfare. The Chinese make these goods by enslaving
their own workforce.
They believe the individual only exists to serve the state.

On 3/10/2012 11:45 AM, harry wrote:
Silly idea. Your idea, taken to its logical conclusion, means that one
should buy only those things produced by one's neighbors on the same block.

I remind you, once again, you should study one of your countryman's
contribution to economics: "An Inquiry Into the Wealth of Nations," by Adam
Smith. In a nutshell, he said a country should produce what it can produce
best and most cheaply, then trade with other nations. To be self-sufficient

Same as UK?

On 3/10/2012 7:20 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:

Well you can buy American or you can buy Chinese.
Patriotic Americans wil buy American and support American jobs.

Republicans will buy Chinese and sell America down the river.
Which has been the problem for the last ten or fifteen years.
Support child/slave labour in China and fall in with the Chinese plot
to destroy America..
Selfish greedy *******s can't see beyond the end of their noses.

Silly idea. Your idea, taken to its logical conclusion, means that one
should buy only those things produced by one's neighbors on the same block.

I remind you, once again, you should study one of your countryman's
contribution to economics: "An Inquiry Into the Wealth of Nations," by Adam
Smith. In a nutshell, he said a country should produce what it can produce
best and most cheaply, then trade with other nations. To be self-sufficient
in all things is a fool's errand and guaranteed to produce ruination.

If I give you five dollars for a tool, it's because I have more dollars than
tools. You accept the trade because you have more tools than dollars. We
both leave the transaction wealthier than before we entered into it.

The same for nations.

We sell a Boeing 737 to Japan Airways because their dollars are worth more
to us than the airplane. Likewise, to the Japs, the airplane is worth more
than the dollars used to buy it. Both nations are wealthier as a result.



Add Milton Friedman quote I just copied from Facebook:

"Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own.
Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own.
So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be
properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property."

-Milton Friedman

On 3/10/2012 7:20 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:

Well you can buy American or you can buy Chinese.
Patriotic Americans wil buy American and support American jobs.

Republicans will buy Chinese and sell America down the river.
Which has been the problem for the last ten or fifteen years.
Support child/slave labour in China and fall in with the Chinese plot
to destroy America..
Selfish greedy *******s can't see beyond the end of their noses.

Silly idea. Your idea, taken to its logical conclusion, means that one
should buy only those things produced by one's neighbors on the same block.


It's the "trade deficit", Stupid!

I'll buy from any country where we don't have a huge trade deficit.

harry wrote:
On Mar 10, 12:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Well you can buy American or you can buy Chinese.
Patriotic Americans wil buy American and support American jobs.

Republicans will buy Chinese and sell America down the river.
Which has been the problem for the last ten or fifteen years.
Support child/slave labour in China and fall in with the Chinese
plot to destroy America..
Selfish greedy *******s can't see beyond the end of their noses.

Silly idea. Your idea, taken to its logical conclusion, means that
one should buy only those things produced by one's neighbors on the
same block.

I remind you, once again, you should study one of your countryman's
contribution to economics: "An Inquiry Into the Wealth of Nations,"
by Adam Smith. In a nutshell, he said a country should produce what
it can produce best and most cheaply, then trade with other nations.
To be self-sufficient in all things is a fool's errand and
guaranteed to produce ruination.

If I give you five dollars for a tool, it's because I have more
dollars than tools. You accept the trade because you have more tools
than dollars. We both leave the transaction wealthier than before we
entered into it.

The same for nations.

We sell a Boeing 737 to Japan Airways because their dollars are
worth more to us than the airplane. Likewise, to the Japs, the
airplane is worth more than the dollars used to buy it. Both nations
are wealthier as a result.

It is economic warfare. The Chinese make these goods by enslaving
their own workforce.
They believe the individual only exists to serve the state.

But that works to our benefit, doesn't it?

Harry Johnson wrote:
On 3/10/2012 7:20 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:

Well you can buy American or you can buy Chinese.
Patriotic Americans wil buy American and support American jobs.

Republicans will buy Chinese and sell America down the river.
Which has been the problem for the last ten or fifteen years.
Support child/slave labour in China and fall in with the Chinese
plot to destroy America..
Selfish greedy *******s can't see beyond the end of their noses.

Silly idea. Your idea, taken to its logical conclusion, means that
one should buy only those things produced by one's neighbors on the
same block.

It's the "trade deficit", Stupid!

I'll buy from any country where we don't have a huge trade deficit.

It's not a one-to-one, zero-sum game. We have a trade deficit with China,
but China has a trade deficit with India. India, in turn, has a trade
deficit with the U.S.

It averages out.

On 3/10/12 1:48 PM, Frank wrote:

"Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he
spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as
carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and
effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly
utilized, you have to do it through the means of private
property."

-Milton Friedman

That's a GREAT quote. Saved it into my archives...

Ranks up there with Maggie Thatcher's "Socialism is a great
idea, until you run out of other peoples' money"...

On Mar 10, 8:15*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Mar 10, 12:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Well you can buy American or you can buy Chinese.
Patriotic Americans wil buy American and support American jobs.

Republicans will buy Chinese and sell America down the river.
Which has been the problem for the last ten or fifteen years.
Support child/slave labour in China and fall in with the Chinese
plot to destroy America..
Selfish greedy *******s can't see beyond the end of their noses.

Silly idea. Your idea, taken to its logical conclusion, means that
one should buy only those things produced by one's neighbors on the
same block.

I remind you, once again, you should study one of your countryman's
contribution to economics: "An Inquiry Into the Wealth of Nations,"
by Adam Smith. In a nutshell, he said a country should produce what
it can produce best and most cheaply, then trade with other nations.
To be self-sufficient in all things is a fool's errand and
guaranteed to produce ruination.

If I give you five dollars for a tool, it's because I have more
dollars than tools. You accept the trade because you have more tools
than dollars. We both leave the transaction wealthier than before we
entered into it.

The same for nations.

We sell a Boeing 737 to Japan Airways because their dollars are
worth more to us than the airplane. Likewise, to the Japs, the
airplane is worth more than the dollars used to buy it. Both nations
are wealthier as a result.

It is economic warfare. The Chinese make these goods by enslaving
their own workforce.
They believe the individual only exists to serve the state.

But that works to our benefit, doesn't it?- Hide quoted text -

Not when that state is working to subvert your own.

On Mar 10, 8:16*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry Johnson wrote:
On 3/10/2012 7:20 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:

Well you can buy American or you can buy Chinese.
Patriotic Americans wil buy American and support American jobs.

Republicans will buy Chinese and sell America down the river.
Which has been the problem for the last ten or fifteen years.
Support child/slave labour in China and fall in with the Chinese
plot to destroy America..
Selfish greedy *******s can't see beyond the end of their noses.

Silly idea. Your idea, taken to its logical conclusion, means that
one should buy only those things produced by one's neighbors on the
same block.

It's the "trade deficit", Stupid!

I'll buy from any country where we don't have a huge trade deficit.

It's not a one-to-one, zero-sum game. We have a trade deficit with China,
but China has a trade deficit with India. India, in turn, has a trade
deficit with the U.S.

It averages out

China has a massive surplus .
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/balance-of-trade
You are in lala land as usual.

I suppose you could sell them Alaska

On 3/10/2012 3:15 PM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:


It is economic warfare. The Chinese make these goods by enslaving
their own workforce.
They believe the individual only exists to serve the state.

But that works to our benefit, doesn't it?



Until the Chinese own the United States, which will be soon.

Will your grandkids be slaves to the Chinese?

On Mar 11, 2:48*pm, diy savant wrote:
On 3/10/2012 3:15 PM, HeyBub wrote:

harry wrote:

It is economic warfare. The Chinese make these goods by enslaving
their own workforce.
They believe the individual only exists to serve the state.

But that works to our benefit, doesn't it?

Until the Chinese own the United States, which will be soon.

Will your grandkids be slaves to the Chinese?

Quite likely they will.

On 09 Mar 2012 20:07:46 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 09 Mar 2012 16:46:52 GMT, Han wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
m:

The target price was $22, but they settled on a $50 bulb. Does that
sound like a government program?

From HeyBub's link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...nt-subsidized-
green-light-bulb-carries-costly-price-tag/2012/03/07/gIQAFxOD0R_story.h
tml

"Energy legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2007
introduced a ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs, covering
traditional 100-watt bulbs this year. Sales of traditional 75-watt
incandescents will be prohibited next year, and 60-watt incandescents
will go after that."

...and your point is?

You're highly intelligent. I'm sure you can figure it out.

No, sorry. The leftist's brain is way beyond human comprehension.

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 00:22:14 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Mar 10, 8:16*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry Johnson wrote:
On 3/10/2012 7:20 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:

Well you can buy American or you can buy Chinese.
Patriotic Americans wil buy American and support American jobs.

Republicans will buy Chinese and sell America down the river.
Which has been the problem for the last ten or fifteen years.
Support child/slave labour in China and fall in with the Chinese
plot to destroy America..
Selfish greedy *******s can't see beyond the end of their noses.

Silly idea. Your idea, taken to its logical conclusion, means that
one should buy only those things produced by one's neighbors on the
same block.

It's the "trade deficit", Stupid!

I'll buy from any country where we don't have a huge trade deficit.

It's not a one-to-one, zero-sum game. We have a trade deficit with China,
but China has a trade deficit with India. India, in turn, has a trade
deficit with the U.S.

It averages out

China has a massive surplus .
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/balance-of-trade
You are in lala land as usual.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/bu...yuan.html?_r=1


I suppose you could sell them Alaska

I'd rather sell them Kalifornica.

" wrote in
:

On 09 Mar 2012 20:07:46 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 09 Mar 2012 16:46:52 GMT, Han wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

The target price was $22, but they settled on a $50 bulb. Does that
sound like a government program?

From HeyBub's link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...my/government-
subsidized-
green-light-bulb-carries-costly-price-
tag/2012/03/07/gIQAFxOD0R_story.h
tml

"Energy legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2007
introduced a ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs, covering
traditional 100-watt bulbs this year. Sales of traditional 75-watt
incandescents will be prohibited next year, and 60-watt incandescents
will go after that."

...and your point is?

You're highly intelligent. I'm sure you can figure it out.

No, sorry. The leftist's brain is way beyond human comprehension.

Hint: GWB signed the bill that mandates this in 2007.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 13 Mar 2012 01:17:46 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 09 Mar 2012 20:07:46 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 09 Mar 2012 16:46:52 GMT, Han wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
m:

The target price was $22, but they settled on a $50 bulb. Does that
sound like a government program?

From HeyBub's link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...my/government-
subsidized-
green-light-bulb-carries-costly-price-
tag/2012/03/07/gIQAFxOD0R_story.h
tml

"Energy legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2007
introduced a ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs, covering
traditional 100-watt bulbs this year. Sales of traditional 75-watt
incandescents will be prohibited next year, and 60-watt incandescents
will go after that."

...and your point is?

You're highly intelligent. I'm sure you can figure it out.

No, sorry. The leftist's brain is way beyond human comprehension.

Hint: GWB signed the bill that mandates this in 2007.

Funny, I never would have guessed that you were a GWB groupie. You really are
an odd lefty. Thought nothing about GWB was right of center.

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:00:50 -0700 (PDT), BobR
wrote:

On Mar 12, 6:39*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 00:22:14 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:
On Mar 10, 8:16*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry Johnson wrote:
On 3/10/2012 7:20 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:

Well you can buy American or you can buy Chinese.
Patriotic Americans wil buy American and support American jobs.

Republicans will buy Chinese and sell America down the river.
Which has been the problem for the last ten or fifteen years.
Support child/slave labour in China and fall in with the Chinese
plot to destroy America..
Selfish greedy *******s can't see beyond the end of their noses.

Silly idea. Your idea, taken to its logical conclusion, means that
one should buy only those things produced by one's neighbors on the
same block.

It's the "trade deficit", Stupid!

I'll buy from any country where we don't have a huge trade deficit.

It's not a one-to-one, zero-sum game. We have a trade deficit with China,
but China has a trade deficit with India. India, in turn, has a trade
deficit with the U.S.

It averages out

China has a massive surplus .
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/balance-of-trade
You are in lala land as usual.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/bu...yuan.html?_r=1



I suppose you could sell them Alaska

I'd rather sell them Kalifornica.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You couldn't sell it to anybody, you would have to pay them to take
it.

Mexicans seem to want it but we'd probably have to throw in Arizona and New
Mexico, too, with maybe 30 years' welfare payments.

On Mar 13, 6:00*pm, BobR wrote:
On Mar 12, 6:39*pm, "





wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 00:22:14 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:
On Mar 10, 8:16*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry Johnson wrote:
On 3/10/2012 7:20 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:

Well you can buy American or you can buy Chinese.
Patriotic Americans wil buy American and support American jobs.

Republicans will buy Chinese and sell America down the river.
Which has been the problem for the last ten or fifteen years.
Support child/slave labour in China and fall in with the Chinese
plot to destroy America..
Selfish greedy *******s can't see beyond the end of their noses.

Silly idea. Your idea, taken to its logical conclusion, means that
one should buy only those things produced by one's neighbors on the
same block.

It's the "trade deficit", Stupid!

I'll buy from any country where we don't have a huge trade deficit..

It's not a one-to-one, zero-sum game. We have a trade deficit with China,
but China has a trade deficit with India. India, in turn, has a trade
deficit with the U.S.

It averages out

China has a massive surplus .
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/balance-of-trade
You are in lala land as usual.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/bu...yuan.html?_r=1

I suppose you could sell them Alaska

I'd rather sell them Kalifornica.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You couldn't sell it to anybody, you would have to pay them to take
it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well Alaska is nearer for them.
But wait, would they be willing to take Palin too?
Whatever happened to her BTW? We never hear about her any more over
here.