"Ed Huntress" wrote in message .net...
"bg" wrote in message
om...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...


It is not a matter of research to find the solution. The solution is
evident. Change the paradigm or die. It is the law of nature. The
nature of the beast. The strong survive and the weak die off. Adapt
and thee will survive. What they will adapt to, is what really needs
to be researched.

"The solution is evident"? So, what's the solution?

Change or die. Its cold, but has always been true. The milkman, diaper
man, Knife sharpening truck, etc. If they didnt change the paradigm,
they starved.

Ah, the old free-trade mantra raises its little head. So, you're comparing a
skilled moldmaker, who works with 3D CAD and 5-axis high-speed machining
centers, with a guy who sharpens knives on the back of a truck?

Only in the respect that they reinvented themselves. They were forced
to adapt. I have given you cases and examples in our postings of
companies that have been forced to do so and have done so successfuly.

You sound like Grant Aldonis, Assistant Sec. of Commerce. He thinks our
productivity is too low to compete. He apparently didn't read his own
department's figures, which show that we have the highest productivity in
the world.

I dont believe that at all. I am the one saying that I have confidence
in our productivity. You seem to be the one throwing in the towel, not
even willing to attempt innovation.

As you sit there telling other people what they must do, bg, what is it you
suggest? Should they all start becoming middlemen for China?

I am suggesting that we need innovation, nothing else. It is
conceptual,but some people will become middlemen, some laborers, some
engineers, and so on. I believe what we are seeing is a natural state
of economics.



Do they have geographic
advantages?

Over most countries, yes.

You don't understand the question. Geographic advantage relates to an
advantageous climate or low-cost trans-shipping. In terms of trade with the
US, China has neither.

Ed, why all the huffnpuff? You did not specify you were looking for
climate or low cost shipping. You merely stated geography. And in the
general sense of the term, yes, they do have certain advantages. But
yes, they dont have anything special over us, geographically.


Resource advantages?
Over most countries, yes.

We aren't talking about "most countries." We're talking about the US. Again,
no advantage overall.

Correct. But agin, you were not specific.


Innovation is lacking. That si the basis for my argument. It is
lacking.

And your argument is utter nonsense. The US is the most innovative economy
in the world. So, your cure for an assault by low-wage mercantilism is to do
something that you can't think of yourself, and that this country already
does better than anyone else. That sounds like a self-serving excuse to me,
bg, when it's coming from someone who's engaged in foreign trade himself.
Your prescription seems to be, "go away, I have mine."

huffnpuffing.Why?

Innovation is not utter nonsense. Thousands of companies all over the
world are planning for it everyday. How many times has IBM reinvented
itself? Countless. Yes, we are the most innovative economy in the
world. It is our greatest advantage, and have said/alluded so in my
previous posts. That is why we should continue to put more effort in
this area. How do you relate this to be self serving? It is our
countries greatest economic asset!


The
real question now, for a country that wants its economy to grow, is what
goals they should establish. Keep cutting wages? There's a winner for
you...


Goals?
Provide sound govt economic planning - we dont
Provide ample economic infrastructure - we dont
Provide money and resources for research and dev. - we need more.

Ooh, more government planning and spending. They're going to take your
Junior Libertarian Free-Trade Decoder Ring away from you if you keep talking
like that, bg. g

I am talking about simple things, like instead of that 2 lane road,
think big and make a 6 lane road. It is easy for countries like China
to do it, because they are starting from ground zero. But we have to
think along those lines. Improving roads, ports and other
infrastructure. They are the foundation of any working economy.

I admit, I dont always like the free trade deal. It seems that it is
never negotiated to perfection. But then I am not confident we will
ever see perfection in my lifetime.




I believe China knows exactly what they are doing.

It isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of facts. And one key fact is
that the Chinese are addicted to their state-run enterprises, which are
their employment buffer that keeps a lid on unrest, even while they run
their banking system into the tank. Their banks are insolvent. If they
opened up their state banking system to competition, as they've promised
the
WTO they will do, there would be a run on those banks tomorrow, and they
would collapse within a week. All of their money is loaned out in
non-performing loans, which can never be paid back. They knew they would
never be paid back when they loaned the money -- to state-run
enterprises,
exclusively. There's no way to call those loans in. The money is all
gone.

For both practical and ideological reasons, China's government is unable
to
do anything about it. They can't get off of the merry-go-'round they've
created. They're sweating it. So is the world banking community.

Chinas banks have been in garage sale mode for the past three years
selling off bad assets in a fire sale, even to foreigners. The loans
are being written off and they are working on getting the program on
track.

But you are mistaken to think there is no competition. Froeign bnaks
now work in local currency, give loans and sell financial instruments.
I suggest you get your facts straight.

You neglect to mention that this is only in a few select cities, and most of
the foreign banks' RMB services are only allowed to Chinese businesses, not
to the foreigners doing business in China. The phased "liberalization" of
foreign banks in China won't be complete until 2007.

Thats true. And they would definitely fall on their faces if forced to
float their currency right now. Thats why they are fighting it. But
they are on the right track. I watched all the other Asian economies
wait until disaster struck. At least they are doing something about it
before hand, even though so much more needs to be done.

Meanwhile, our Fed. Reserve estimates that the non-performing loan (NPL)
percentage among major Chinese banks is around 60%. In a competitive
marketplace, banks are usually insolvent when their NPL goes above 20%.
Their capital-adequacy ratios (CARs) are still far below the international
norm of 8%, while they're demanding far higher ratios, well ABOVE the
international norm, from foreign banks that want to do business in China. At
the same time, they have limited the inter-bank loans from Chinese banks to
foreign banks, which is one of their few sources of RMB, assuring that their
growth will be limited, and that Chinese banks won't have to compete with
them except at that margins, for quite a long time to come. They're barely
sticking to the letter of their WTO agreements, but it's obvious they're
doing everything they can to hold back the tide.

But China's banks are not in a competitive marketplace. If they were, as I
said, they'd have a run and go belly-up before week's end.



By the way, In regards to your numbers on the automotive guys buying
from China, I am really surprised they are so late. VW, audi, Peugeot,
Toyota, Honda and Nissan have all been benefitting greatly. I dont
believe all have been exporting full vehicles, but many have.

Not. VW has by far the largest market share in China, at 40%. From "The
Business Times," August 4, 2003: "China, the land of $50 VCRs and $3
haircuts, remains too uncompetitive a place to make cars for export. And
it
could take up to five years before the country exports cars, according
to a
top VW executive yesterday."

From Automotive News Europe, July 16, 2003: "Volkswagen, which has
complained frequently about the high cost of auto parts in China, will
follow the example of Ford Motor Co. and General Motors and begin
sourcing
parts here for its global operations."

Opinion is a kind of low-level ailment, bg. The cure for it is facts.
Unfortunately, they require some effort to research.

"A shipment of 252 Xiali economy cars manufactured in north China's
port city of Tianjin is on its way to the United States market.
Tianjin is the leading manufacturing center for economy cars in China.

The cars, produced by Tianjin Auto Group in cooperation with Toyota,
are the first batch of Chinese-made economy cars to be exported. They
are part of a deal signed in April between the manufacturer and
, which will be the sole
agent for Xiali economy cars on the international market.

According to the deal, the American company will be responsible for
selling at least 25,000 Xiali cars during the next five years"

Ah, bg, that ship set sail in June of 2002. Maybe your subscription to the
People's Daily is running a little behind. g

American Automobile Network Holdings Inc. was the remnant of the collapsed
Daewoo dealer network in the U.S. All hat, no cattle. No cars, either.

The cars were slated to land in Port Everglades, Fla., but the US government
wouldn't allow them to pass through customs because they don't meet US
emissions standards. The ship was re-routed to Mexico, and then apparently
it was decided they'd land in Port Everglades after all, for trans-shipment
to Africa.

They haven't been heard from since. They may have tried to cross the Bermuda
Triangle...

There could be a connection, though, with an incident in which the golf
carts at the Boca Raton Country Club were replaced in the dead of night by a
fleet of funny little hardtops with radios and turn signals, and with
tear-off pads of Chinese takeout menus stuffed into the glove boxes. Under
the vehicles' insignia, which no one recognizes, are the words "Happy,
Happy, Joy, Joy."

Golfers are generally pleased with the new vehicles, although they complain
about the lack of air conditioning and a noxious odor coming from their
trunks. "It smells like somebody has been living in there for weeks," says
Boca Raton police chief Billy-Bob Turkle. "But it can't be, because those
trunks are so small you could barely stuff a Chinaman in there."

The mysterious replacement of the golf carts, which turned up in a
hand-laundry parking lot near Clearwater, is under investigation. Police
report that the carts were missing their batteries and tires.


GM Shanghai is also exporting cars to the Phillipines (I have a
relative who recently left GM Asia to work for one of their major
parts suppliers - at least 5 factories in China now).

Yeah, a grand total of 900 luxury Buicks. But I was responding to this
statement of yours: "VW, audi, Peugeot, Toyota, Honda and Nissan have all
been benefitting greatly. I dont believe all have been exporting full
vehicles, but many have." One assumes that the Shanghai VW executive quoted
in that article knows where the cars that his company makes are going.

The total passenger car exports from China this year, which are all trial
balloons, run to less than 2,000 vehicles, including SUVs, to other parts of
Asia, Turkey, Iran, and Africa. The joke is that they're all being bought by
Chinese foreign diplomats. That isn't trade. That's cultural exchange. g

Ed, all of those mfrs are benefitting greatly. Some of them have plans
in the works, now building factories for export purposes. My initial
question was in regards to why they have waited so long to buy parts
from China. You reply with a quote from a VW exec,which was not
exactly correct.

You want to focus on the petty word "many"? Lets get on to solving the
worlds problems. What are you picking at this stuff for? I think we're
making progress. Its nice to discuss issues like this with someone who
has a good background. I learn from it. You dont have to get snappy...


I suggest that you take some medicine for that ailment Ed.You need
some more research to come up with facts.

Yeah, more research. Maybe you can send me your year-old "People's Daily's"
so I can find out what happened last year. G

Any word on the Xiali ghost ship?

Hey, I just did a quick search. I didnt bother to think that I was
reading something out of Laurel And Hardys Ghost Ship short.

bg

In article , bg says...

Look, it would be great to come up with a new economic theory that
will fix all the economic disparities in the world today. But its not
something that will happen tomorrow. People need solutions near-term.
So if that is a given, we need to work within the systems we have
available as best we can.

But I have *told* everyone what the near-term solutions
are going to be. All the executives are starting to act
on my proposal as we converse.

Simply fire all the US workers, and move production over
to China, where they make exactly the same thing that
was being made in the US, for 1/20 of the cost. Import
the widgets, and sell them for more profit than before.

Continue until you run out of a) widgets b)folks to make
widgets, or c) folks (with money) to buy widgets. For the
head of a corporation, this is not only a no-brainer but
indeed they would be remiss in their responsibilities
to the stockholders if they did *not* do this in its
entirety.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gary R Coffman says...

Remember that the number
of lawyers is also expanding exponentially.

OK. So we will all be either working for wal-mart
or its equivalent, doing all our shopping there,
and also moonlighting as lawyers - suing each
other.

Somehow this seems like a rather bleak picture.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary R Coffman
says...

Remember that the number
of lawyers is also expanding exponentially.

OK. So we will all be either working for wal-mart
or its equivalent, doing all our shopping there,
and also moonlighting as lawyers - suing each
other.

Somehow this seems like a rather bleak picture.

My fallback position is one described by a Rutgers professor a few years
ago. He said that getting hit by a car in New Jersey is treated with as much
glee as winning the lottery. So I figure that, if I get laid off, I'll be
crossing a lot of streets in crowded, low-speed-limit zones.

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


At the end of 1998, the US employment stats looked like this (in thousands):

Manufacturing: 18,587
Retail trade: 22,650

As of the 2nd quarter of 2003, they looked like this:

Manufacturing: 14,741
Retail trade: 14,979

Interesting. That's a 20.69% drop for manufacturing and a 33.86% drop
for retail.

I hear in the news all the time how badly manufacturing has been hurt,
but it looks like retail is taking a much bigger beating. That looks
like it at least somewhat supports the generalization that every
manufacturing job supports several retail/service jobs.

Jon

"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


At the end of 1998, the US employment stats looked like this (in
thousands):

Manufacturing: 18,587
Retail trade: 22,650

As of the 2nd quarter of 2003, they looked like this:

Manufacturing: 14,741
Retail trade: 14,979

Interesting. That's a 20.69% drop for manufacturing and a 33.86% drop
for retail.

I hear in the news all the time how badly manufacturing has been hurt,
but it looks like retail is taking a much bigger beating. That looks
like it at least somewhat supports the generalization that every
manufacturing job supports several retail/service jobs.

Retail is a volatile employer today, in which wages are very low,
professionalism among staff employees is out the window, and relatively few
people approach it as a career. Employment in retail probably is more
sensitive to the state of the economy than any other type of job. My whole
family, BTW, was in retail management, with Sears, Macy's, and the Federated
Department Stores group. I'm the only one in my family who never was in it.

The question of how much manufacturing supports service jobs, and how much
service jobs support manufacturing, is a very interesting one. I asked a
well-known economist about it a few months ago and he acted as if the
question had never occurred to him. He thinks in terms of the two rising and
falling together. I wish I knew more about it.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:49:13 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
news

You're doing back-porch economics here, but it's easy to test. If what
you're saying was true, it would show up as a decline in GDP per capita.
But there was no such decline.

Sure there was, but you have to calculate it in *constant dollars* to see it.
That's the only way you can compare actual purchasing power differences
between years.

Gary


This is a joke, right?

Not at all. The issue being discussed is that it now requires the
purchasing power of two earners to maintain a comfortable middle
class household. The reason for that is obviously inflation, and one
of the main contributors to inflation over the period in question was
the introduction of the two earner household, which caused both
push and pull in the market, which resulted in depreciated wage
rates simultaneously with higher prices of household goods and
services, as I explained previously. Since inflation is integral to the
argument, you have to do the measurement in constant dollars to
see the changes in purchasing power from year to year as the
number of women in the workforce increased.

Gary

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:45:04 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:45:26 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
.. .
On 11 Aug 2003 12:45:33 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:
I have no problem at all with them buying stuff from overseas.
The trouble happens in the 'fire all those expensive american
workers' section. If they fire all the workers then nobody's
gonna be there to buy stuff at Wal-Mart. Sounds like the
end result is a depression.

Seems to me that Walmart is *hiring* American workers to staff
all the stores they're opening to sell all those inexpensive goods.
Walmart is one of the fastest growing companies in the US.

Gary


Yes. Have you noticed what they pay? Do you know what the average pay is
at
Wal-Mart, versus the average pay in manufacturing?

Hint: It's roughly half. And the number of service jobs that supported
*manufacturing*, itself, are now gone. All that's left there is the
low-paying service jobs that support *products*.

Yes, but there are a *lot* more of those jobs than there were
manufacturing
jobs. Sure, some of those high pay low skill assembly line jobs are gone,
there
aren't as many auto workers with cabins at the lake and a big boat, but
more
people are earning enough to shop at Walmart (many getting an employee
discount too).

Gary.


At the end of 1998, the US employment stats looked like this (in thousands):

Manufacturing: 18,587
Retail trade: 22,650

As of the 2nd quarter of 2003, they looked like this:

Manufacturing: 14,741
Retail trade: 14,979

Next question?

The next question would be (if your figures are correct),
where are the missing 11+ million workers now employed?

Since that number handily exceeds the total for unemployed
workers (which has actually declined from a peak of 7.4 million
in 1995), they must be doing something.

Gary

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:58:01 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
As you sit there telling other people what they must do, bg, what is it you
suggest? Should they all start becoming middlemen for China?

That's actually not a stupid suggestion. Just ask Archer Daniels Midland
about how profitable it can be to be a middleman. Or ask your friends in
manufacturing who made the most money, an assembly line worker, or
a company commission salesman (manufacturer's rep).

Gary

"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:45:04 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:45:26 GMT, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:
"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
.. .
On 11 Aug 2003 12:45:33 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:
I have no problem at all with them buying stuff from overseas.
The trouble happens in the 'fire all those expensive american
workers' section. If they fire all the workers then nobody's
gonna be there to buy stuff at Wal-Mart. Sounds like the
end result is a depression.

Seems to me that Walmart is *hiring* American workers to staff
all the stores they're opening to sell all those inexpensive goods.
Walmart is one of the fastest growing companies in the US.

Gary


Yes. Have you noticed what they pay? Do you know what the average pay
is
at
Wal-Mart, versus the average pay in manufacturing?

Hint: It's roughly half. And the number of service jobs that supported
*manufacturing*, itself, are now gone. All that's left there is the
low-paying service jobs that support *products*.

Yes, but there are a *lot* more of those jobs than there were
manufacturing
jobs. Sure, some of those high pay low skill assembly line jobs are
gone,
there
aren't as many auto workers with cabins at the lake and a big boat, but
more
people are earning enough to shop at Walmart (many getting an employee
discount too).

Gary.


At the end of 1998, the US employment stats looked like this (in
thousands):

Manufacturing: 18,587
Retail trade: 22,650

As of the 2nd quarter of 2003, they looked like this:

Manufacturing: 14,741
Retail trade: 14,979

Next question?

The next question would be (if your figures are correct),
where are the missing 11+ million workers now employed?

Since that number handily exceeds the total for unemployed
workers (which has actually declined from a peak of 7.4 million
in 1995), they must be doing something.

You'd have to spend some time with the DoL stats to get at that one. There
was an increase of 1.5 million government employees during the 1998 - 2003
period, and an overall private-sector decline in hours worked per week. That
means more are working part-time. The decline in hours equivalent amounts to
3.5 million full-time jobs.

Employment gains have all been in services, both private and government. You
can get breakdowns at DoL that will show where the ups and downs are.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:58:01 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
As you sit there telling other people what they must do, bg, what is it
you
suggest? Should they all start becoming middlemen for China?

That's actually not a stupid suggestion.

For an individual, it's actually a very profitable idea. For an economy as a
whole, it's a stupid suggestion.

Ed Huntress

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)
"bg" wrote in message
om...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...
"bg" wrote in message
om...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...


It is not a matter of research to find the solution. The solution
is
evident. Change the paradigm or die. It is the law of nature. The
nature of the beast. The strong survive and the weak die off.
Adapt
and thee will survive. What they will adapt to, is what really
needs
to be researched.

"The solution is evident"? So, what's the solution?

Change or die. Its cold, but has always been true. The milkman, diaper
man, Knife sharpening truck, etc. If they didnt change the paradigm,
they starved.

Ah, the old free-trade mantra raises its little head. So, you're
comparing a
skilled moldmaker, who works with 3D CAD and 5-axis high-speed machining
centers, with a guy who sharpens knives on the back of a truck?

Only in the respect that they reinvented themselves. They were forced
to adapt. I have given you cases and examples in our postings of
companies that have been forced to do so and have done so successfuly.

You sound like Grant Aldonis, Assistant Sec. of Commerce. He thinks our
productivity is too low to compete. He apparently didn't read his own
department's figures, which show that we have the highest productivity
in
the world.

I dont believe that at all. I am the one saying that I have confidence
in our productivity. You seem to be the one throwing in the towel, not
even willing to attempt innovation.

As you sit there telling other people what they must do, bg, what is it
you
suggest? Should they all start becoming middlemen for China?

I am suggesting that we need innovation, nothing else. It is
conceptual,but some people will become middlemen, some laborers, some
engineers, and so on. I believe what we are seeing is a natural state
of economics.



Do they have geographic
advantages?

Over most countries, yes.

You don't understand the question. Geographic advantage relates to an
advantageous climate or low-cost trans-shipping. In terms of trade with
the
US, China has neither.

Ed, why all the huffnpuff? You did not specify you were looking for
climate or low cost shipping. You merely stated geography. And in the
general sense of the term, yes, they do have certain advantages. But
yes, they dont have anything special over us, geographically.


Resource advantages?
Over most countries, yes.

We aren't talking about "most countries." We're talking about the US.
Again,
no advantage overall.

Correct. But agin, you were not specific.


Innovation is lacking. That si the basis for my argument. It is
lacking.

And your argument is utter nonsense. The US is the most innovative
economy
in the world. So, your cure for an assault by low-wage mercantilism is
to do
something that you can't think of yourself, and that this country
already
does better than anyone else. That sounds like a self-serving excuse to
me,
bg, when it's coming from someone who's engaged in foreign trade
himself.
Your prescription seems to be, "go away, I have mine."

huffnpuffing.Why?

Innovation is not utter nonsense. Thousands of companies all over the
world are planning for it everyday. How many times has IBM reinvented
itself? Countless. Yes, we are the most innovative economy in the
world. It is our greatest advantage, and have said/alluded so in my
previous posts. That is why we should continue to put more effort in
this area. How do you relate this to be self serving? It is our
countries greatest economic asset!


The
real question now, for a country that wants its economy to grow, is
what
goals they should establish. Keep cutting wages? There's a winner
for
you...


Goals?
Provide sound govt economic planning - we dont
Provide ample economic infrastructure - we dont
Provide money and resources for research and dev. - we need more.

Ooh, more government planning and spending. They're going to take your
Junior Libertarian Free-Trade Decoder Ring away from you if you keep
talking
like that, bg. g

I am talking about simple things, like instead of that 2 lane road,
think big and make a 6 lane road. It is easy for countries like China
to do it, because they are starting from ground zero. But we have to
think along those lines. Improving roads, ports and other
infrastructure. They are the foundation of any working economy.

I admit, I dont always like the free trade deal. It seems that it is
never negotiated to perfection. But then I am not confident we will
ever see perfection in my lifetime.




I believe China knows exactly what they are doing.

It isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of facts. And one key
fact is
that the Chinese are addicted to their state-run enterprises, which
are
their employment buffer that keeps a lid on unrest, even while they
run
their banking system into the tank. Their banks are insolvent. If
they
opened up their state banking system to competition, as they've
promised
the
WTO they will do, there would be a run on those banks tomorrow, and
they
would collapse within a week. All of their money is loaned out in
non-performing loans, which can never be paid back. They knew they
would
never be paid back when they loaned the money -- to state-run
enterprises,
exclusively. There's no way to call those loans in. The money is all
gone.

For both practical and ideological reasons, China's government is
unable
to
do anything about it. They can't get off of the merry-go-'round
they've
created. They're sweating it. So is the world banking community.

Chinas banks have been in garage sale mode for the past three years
selling off bad assets in a fire sale, even to foreigners. The loans
are being written off and they are working on getting the program on
track.

But you are mistaken to think there is no competition. Froeign bnaks
now work in local currency, give loans and sell financial instruments.
I suggest you get your facts straight.

You neglect to mention that this is only in a few select cities, and
most of
the foreign banks' RMB services are only allowed to Chinese businesses,
not
to the foreigners doing business in China. The phased "liberalization"
of
foreign banks in China won't be complete until 2007.

Thats true. And they would definitely fall on their faces if forced to
float their currency right now. Thats why they are fighting it. But
they are on the right track. I watched all the other Asian economies
wait until disaster struck. At least they are doing something about it
before hand, even though so much more needs to be done.

Meanwhile, our Fed. Reserve estimates that the non-performing loan (NPL)
percentage among major Chinese banks is around 60%. In a competitive
marketplace, banks are usually insolvent when their NPL goes above 20%.
Their capital-adequacy ratios (CARs) are still far below the
international
norm of 8%, while they're demanding far higher ratios, well ABOVE the
international norm, from foreign banks that want to do business in
China. At
the same time, they have limited the inter-bank loans from Chinese banks
to
foreign banks, which is one of their few sources of RMB, assuring that
their
growth will be limited, and that Chinese banks won't have to compete
with
them except at that margins, for quite a long time to come. They're
barely
sticking to the letter of their WTO agreements, but it's obvious they're
doing everything they can to hold back the tide.

But China's banks are not in a competitive marketplace. If they were, as
I
said, they'd have a run and go belly-up before week's end.



By the way, In regards to your numbers on the automotive guys
buying
from China, I am really surprised they are so late. VW, audi,
Peugeot,
Toyota, Honda and Nissan have all been benefitting greatly. I
dont
believe all have been exporting full vehicles, but many have.

Not. VW has by far the largest market share in China, at 40%. From
"The
Business Times," August 4, 2003: "China, the land of $50 VCRs and $3
haircuts, remains too uncompetitive a place to make cars for export.
And
it
could take up to five years before the country exports cars,
according
to a
top VW executive yesterday."

From Automotive News Europe, July 16, 2003: "Volkswagen, which has
complained frequently about the high cost of auto parts in China,
will
follow the example of Ford Motor Co. and General Motors and begin
sourcing
parts here for its global operations."

Opinion is a kind of low-level ailment, bg. The cure for it is
facts.
Unfortunately, they require some effort to research.

"A shipment of 252 Xiali economy cars manufactured in north China's
port city of Tianjin is on its way to the United States market.
Tianjin is the leading manufacturing center for economy cars in China.

The cars, produced by Tianjin Auto Group in cooperation with Toyota,
are the first batch of Chinese-made economy cars to be exported. They
are part of a deal signed in April between the manufacturer and
, which will be the sole
agent for Xiali economy cars on the international market.

According to the deal, the American company will be responsible for
selling at least 25,000 Xiali cars during the next five years"

Ah, bg, that ship set sail in June of 2002. Maybe your subscription to
the
People's Daily is running a little behind. g

American Automobile Network Holdings Inc. was the remnant of the
collapsed
Daewoo dealer network in the U.S. All hat, no cattle. No cars, either.

The cars were slated to land in Port Everglades, Fla., but the US
government
wouldn't allow them to pass through customs because they don't meet US
emissions standards. The ship was re-routed to Mexico, and then
apparently
it was decided they'd land in Port Everglades after all, for
trans-shipment
to Africa.

They haven't been heard from since. They may have tried to cross the
Bermuda
Triangle...

There could be a connection, though, with an incident in which the golf
carts at the Boca Raton Country Club were replaced in the dead of night
by a
fleet of funny little hardtops with radios and turn signals, and with
tear-off pads of Chinese takeout menus stuffed into the glove boxes.
Under
the vehicles' insignia, which no one recognizes, are the words "Happy,
Happy, Joy, Joy."

Golfers are generally pleased with the new vehicles, although they
complain
about the lack of air conditioning and a noxious odor coming from their
trunks. "It smells like somebody has been living in there for weeks,"
says
Boca Raton police chief Billy-Bob Turkle. "But it can't be, because
those
trunks are so small you could barely stuff a Chinaman in there."

The mysterious replacement of the golf carts, which turned up in a
hand-laundry parking lot near Clearwater, is under investigation. Police
report that the carts were missing their batteries and tires.


GM Shanghai is also exporting cars to the Phillipines (I have a
relative who recently left GM Asia to work for one of their major
parts suppliers - at least 5 factories in China now).

Yeah, a grand total of 900 luxury Buicks. But I was responding to this
statement of yours: "VW, audi, Peugeot, Toyota, Honda and Nissan have
all
been benefitting greatly. I dont believe all have been exporting full
vehicles, but many have." One assumes that the Shanghai VW executive
quoted
in that article knows where the cars that his company makes are going.

The total passenger car exports from China this year, which are all
trial
balloons, run to less than 2,000 vehicles, including SUVs, to other
parts of
Asia, Turkey, Iran, and Africa. The joke is that they're all being
bought by
Chinese foreign diplomats. That isn't trade. That's cultural exchange.
g

Ed, all of those mfrs are benefitting greatly. Some of them have plans
in the works, now building factories for export purposes. My initial
question was in regards to why they have waited so long to buy parts
from China. You reply with a quote from a VW exec,which was not
exactly correct.

You want to focus on the petty word "many"? Lets get on to solving the
worlds problems. What are you picking at this stuff for? I think we're
making progress. Its nice to discuss issues like this with someone who
has a good background. I learn from it. You dont have to get snappy...


I suggest that you take some medicine for that ailment Ed.You need
some more research to come up with facts.

Yeah, more research. Maybe you can send me your year-old "People's
Daily's"
so I can find out what happened last year. G

Any word on the Xiali ghost ship?

Hey, I just did a quick search. I didnt bother to think that I was
reading something out of Laurel And Hardys Ghost Ship short.

bg

Sorry about that last empty message, bg. My trigger finger got jumpy.

As you sit there telling other people what they must do, bg, what is
it
you
suggest? Should they all start becoming middlemen for China?

I am suggesting that we need innovation, nothing else. It is
conceptual,but some people will become middlemen, some laborers, some
engineers, and so on. I believe what we are seeing is a natural state
of economics.

Let's hear specifics, bg. Otherwise, it's all meaningless mush.


Innovation is not utter nonsense. Thousands of companies all over the
world are planning for it everyday. How many times has IBM reinvented
itself? Countless. Yes, we are the most innovative economy in the
world. It is our greatest advantage, and have said/alluded so in my
previous posts. That is why we should continue to put more effort in
this area. How do you relate this to be self serving? It is our
countries greatest economic asset!

Engaging in trade with a low-wage country while prescribing "innovation" for
your countrymen is self-serving, bg. You admonish the people who have lost
their jobs to low-wage imports to do something that you acknowledge you
can't imagine how to do yourself.

It's all a scapegoat argument for some dynamics that require a more thorough
examination than the one you've given to it. Your posture is not far from
one of blind faith.

But don't take this personally. I get serious about it because it's a
serious issue. We're awash in fuzzy, qualitative arguments about what the
problem is and what should be done about it, by people who won't take the
time to investigate the accuracy of what they say. We need an antidote for
that.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"Ron Bean" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" writes:

"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
.. .

Once the two wage earner household became the norm, and prices settled
to what two wage earners could afford (remember that prices reflect
what
the market will bear, not necessarily what the product cost to
produce), the
single wage earner household was screwed. Unless the single wage earner
was far above average, his household would be relatively poor compared
to the two wage earner household.

You're doing back-porch economics here, but it's easy to test. If what
you're saying was true, it would show up as a decline in GDP per capita.
But
there was no such decline.

When economists say "per capita", do they mean per citizen or per
employee? If its per employee, then you're right. But GDP per
citizen wouldn't decline under his scenario (in fact it should
rise, for other reasons), and that may be a better measure of
general affluence.

Thanks for catching that. Per capita means per person. I meant per worker.

Ed Huntress

--I'm still waiting for details on HP's "Bunny burner" project;
i.e. home stereolith using a modified laser printer. That would be the
Great Leap Forward in terms of being able to get stuff made at home rather
than manufactured and delivered to stores, etc...

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Quando Omni
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : Flunkus Moritati
http://www.nmpproducts.com/intro.htm
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

In article , Gary R Coffman says...

The next question would be (if your figures are correct),
where are the missing 11+ million workers now employed?

Probably working off the books at wall-mart.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , bg says...

Look, it would be great to come up with a new economic theory that
will fix all the economic disparities in the world today. But its not
something that will happen tomorrow. People need solutions near-term.
So if that is a given, we need to work within the systems we have
available as best we can.

But I have *told* everyone what the near-term solutions
are going to be. All the executives are starting to act
on my proposal as we converse.

Simply fire all the US workers, and move production over
to China, where they make exactly the same thing that
was being made in the US, for 1/20 of the cost. Import
the widgets, and sell them for more profit than before.

Continue until you run out of a) widgets b)folks to make
widgets, or c) folks (with money) to buy widgets. For the
head of a corporation, this is not only a no-brainer but
indeed they would be remiss in their responsibilities
to the stockholders if they did *not* do this in its
entirety.

Before I left Honeywell 18 months ago, I suggested that my boss (I reported
in to the Indian software organization) needed to start hiring MBAs from the
Indian Institute of Management (literally right across the street) so that
the company could start exporting the product management jobs. The amount of
money to be saved would be staggering, and actually made a lot of sense
given that the engineering would be done there anyway.

It's happening.

Pete

"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:24:37 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
Well, then, examine it in constant dollars, Gary. The real GNP in
constant
dollars didn't decline over that period, either. The DoC figures are
available in both current and constant dollars.

In constant dollars (1982), average household income increased by
72.78% from 1964 to 1980. But during that same time, constant
dollar household costs (excluding energy costs) increased by 312%.

What do you mean by "constant dollar household costs"? I'm not familiar with
that stat. Are you talking about household *expenditures*? If so, how does
that relate to "costs"?

Or are you talking about inflation?

I'll address the rest of this when I understand what you mean here.
Meantime, if you want a mainstream explanation of the '70s inflation (which
sounds like what you're talking about), you can find one at:

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Art...ionofthes.html

Ed Huntress

This thread got kind of long, but it was interesting. I teach welding and
machining at a vocational school near Roanoke, VA and train high school kids
for jobs, many of which should be found in manufacturing. True, our
manufacturing base has eroded to the point where I have to educate kids in
what a machine shop is! When I was a kid (10-12 years old) I had never seen
a machine shop, but just by listening to my dad talk while he tinkered I
knew what they did. Today, at least among the kids I work with, there is no
family memory of someone being a machinist or industrial mechanic. They sure
do know what MTV is though, and can play the hell out of a video game! Are
we looking at this thing backwards? Have the jobs followed the labor? I
struggle to get kids interested in this field, particularly the best and
brightest who would make good engineers. The angle I take with most of the
kids now is that they need to learn everything they can, be competent in as
many technologies as they can, have good people skills, and learn to be
professional. That is the best job security. While they won't spend 30 years
working on the same line and retire with a fat pension, they should be able
to live comfortably and not be chronically unemployed. And there will always
be room for the man in this country that can repair anything, as well as be
a craftsman with an artistic flair. Just my dos centavos.
Bruce

"Bruce Hunt" wrote

And there will always
be room for the man in this country that can repair anything, as well as
be
a craftsman with an artistic flair. Just my dos centavos.
Bruce




Very well said.

Mark

"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:14:11 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:58:01 GMT, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:
As you sit there telling other people what they must do, bg, what is
it
you
suggest? Should they all start becoming middlemen for China?

That's actually not a stupid suggestion.

For an individual, it's actually a very profitable idea. For an economy
as a
whole, it's a stupid suggestion.

Considering that a national economy is merely the sum total of the efforts
of all the individuals in the nation, I'm having a bit of difficulty
accepting
your conclusions.

Gary


Think of it this way: If we all paid each other to shine the other's shoes,
which would raise the GDP, would it be good for the economy? g

Importing and distributing are services that serve us best when they are a
very small proportion of the economy -- just enough to get the job done.
It's the goods and their transportation to their destination that add value.

Ed Huntress

Greetings and Salutations...

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:03:42 -0400, "Bruce Hunt"
wrote:

This thread got kind of long, but it was interesting. I teach welding and
machining at a vocational school near Roanoke, VA and train high school kids
for jobs, many of which should be found in manufacturing. True, our
manufacturing base has eroded to the point where I have to educate kids in
what a machine shop is! When I was a kid (10-12 years old) I had never seen
a machine shop, but just by listening to my dad talk while he tinkered I
knew what they did. Today, at least among the kids I work with, there is no
family memory of someone being a machinist or industrial mechanic. They sure
do know what MTV is though, and can play the hell out of a video game! Are
we looking at this thing backwards? Have the jobs followed the labor? I
struggle to get kids interested in this field, particularly the best and
brightest who would make good engineers. The angle I take with most of the
kids now is that they need to learn everything they can, be competent in as
many technologies as they can, have good people skills, and learn to be
professional. That is the best job security. While they won't spend 30 years
working on the same line and retire with a fat pension, they should be able
to live comfortably and not be chronically unemployed. And there will always
be room for the man in this country that can repair anything, as well as be
a craftsman with an artistic flair. Just my dos centavos.
Bruce


Yea, it is an interesting point to debate, and, can be chewed
over for quite a while. This is a good point you bring up here.
IMHO, it is kind of mixed. First off, starting, early 50s (and
perhaps perhaps, as early as the late 40s), there was an increasing
change in attitude in American society. Through much of our history,
college was a goal for a fairly small section of society, and, it was
pretty much accepted that this was the case. For much of society,
High School WAS their "higher education", and, for many folks, only
a year or two of that, as they moved out into the "real" world and
started working.
However, sometime in that period, after WW2, the paradigm
changed to the attitude, which persists today, that EVERYONE needed
to go to college and get a degree. In the 60s and 70s, when I was
in elementary and high school, while there was still some attention
paid to the vocational arts, the whole emphesis of the system was
to prepare each of us to go to college and "get the sheepskin".
The problem here was that there was an implied attitude that
the only "good" job, the only job that was respected, was one
that required a college degree - typically a management/white
collar job. Jobs that involved getting one's hands dirty were
implicitly or explicitly denegrated. The attitude was that
folks that did work with their hands were not as bright
as other folks, and, that "we" were better than that.
So...for several decades now, we have had an erosion
of knowledge and skills required to actually DO the hands-on
manufacturing necessary for an industrial base, and, an
increasing prejudice against folks that DID that sort of thing.
That narrowing base of people that were capable of and
interested in manufacturing meant that there were fewer folks
available for work. The laws of supply and demand kicked in,
and wages went up (of course, the Unions had some influence
in this too).
Added to this mix is the fact that transportation
became cheaper and easier with the advent of increasingly
large cargo ships.
These things all came together to "suddenly" make
it both feasible and economical to manufacture an item
many thousands of miles from its market, transport it,
and still be able to sell it at an economic price.
When THIS kicked in, the manufacturing nations (China,
Tiawan, Korea, India, etc) also started implementing national
policies which fostered this sort of trade, making it
even cheaper and easier for them to take over the
manufacturing jobs in the USA.
Yet another factor is the evolution of focus
in today's business world. Today, the attitude seems to be
"make as much money as possible for us and for the
shareholders and who cares what the product is". While
the purpose of business has ALWAYS been to make money,
it seems to me that 30 years ago, there was a pride of
product in that process. The atttitude seemed to be
more that of "Let's make a great product, that folks will
be REALLY attracted to, and make a ton of money off it".
Combining that with the fact that today's world is
a lot tougher for business, what with the increased
costs, smaller margins and almost cancer-like growth
of government bureaucracy, regulations and laws, really
forces the American businessman to outsource as
much of the work as possible. Paying an American
worker $15 or more an hour to sew pants might
destroy a business, whereas paying someone in
a Third World nation $5/day to produce the same
thing means that they show great profits.
Speaking of cancer, another factor in this whole
bag of worms is the attitude that the only way
a company can be considered "good" is if it shows
a growth of return in every Quarter. If a
company returns the same dividend for two or
three quarters in a row, it is looked upon with
suspicion, and, the stock's value may fall. It
has been my observation that the only thing that
grows continually is cancer...and we KNOW how
good that is for an organism.
The bottom line is that as long as Americans
follow the path where continual, growing returns on
investments; always searching for the lowest price;
and folks that work with their hands are looked upon
with scorn are the rules of the game, our jobs will
continue to vanish overseas.
At some point, I expect that things will
collapse, simply because if all the revenue sources
are gone, we will not have the bucks to buy those
imports from overseas, and, our country will appear
weak enough to be easy pickings for one of the other
countries in the world. That will be a time of
serious chaos for America...and one that I am
not sure can be avoided.
Regards
Dave Mundt

Isn't that how many beers you can buy per hour worked in any given job?



Steve Rayner.


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. net...
"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:24:37 GMT, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:
Well, then, examine it in constant dollars, Gary. The real GNP in
constant
dollars didn't decline over that period, either. The DoC figures are
available in both current and constant dollars.

In constant dollars (1982), average household income increased by
72.78% from 1964 to 1980. But during that same time, constant
dollar household costs (excluding energy costs) increased by 312%.

What do you mean by "constant dollar household costs"? I'm not familiar
with
that stat. Are you talking about household *expenditures*? If so, how does
that relate to "costs"?

Or are you talking about inflation?

I'll address the rest of this when I understand what you mean here.
Meantime, if you want a mainstream explanation of the '70s inflation
(which
sounds like what you're talking about), you can find one at:

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Art...ionofthes.html

Ed Huntress

And lo, it came about, that on Fri, 08 Aug 2003 13:45:54 -0400 in
rec.crafts.metalworking , Gary R Coffman was inspired to
utter:

A world in which America develops new technology which, after a time,
move to more efficient locations is a very good position for America
to be in. This is a competition where we have been very successful
in the past. If we stop the race there are surely others that will be
happy to take the lead.

That's fine for those Americans doing high tech work. But you have to
remember that, by definition, half of the American work force is below
average in their skills and abilities. They need something to do too.
But the low skill jobs they've traditionally done are leaving the country.

Some of the low skill grunt jobs are just plain disappearing. The strong
back kind of jobs, like longshoreman, went away with containerization, etc.
Even the burger flippers are working in a computerized environment: push
the key with the picture, the machine does the rest: add up the order, send it
to the kitchen, compute change. That is one reason Mcdonalds is going to the
kiosk. Why pay several some ones to do what the customer will do?

My Dad pointed out to me years ago, that you could formerly put the village
idiot to work on the mindless tasks, like sweeping, cleaning and the like, but
even then you wouldn't exactly turn him loose with a team. Now a days, we've
got ride of the horses, the mindless tasks have been automated, and the village
idiots are left wondering why they can't get a job.

And we haven't even addressed the issue of regulations barring entry into
the market place. You can't start a cleaning service without being licensed,
bonded, and certified. And the idea of raising chickens in your back yard "for
fun and profit" just isn't going to happen in most municipalities.

The good old days, they were different. Some ways better, some ways worse.
(The two oldest cliches in the book are "The Good Old Days were better." and
"After all, these are Modern TImes.")


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
The cliche is that history rarely repeats herself. Usually she just
lets fly with a frying pan and yells "Why weren't you listening
the first time!?"

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 23:45:40 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:24:37 GMT, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:
Well, then, examine it in constant dollars, Gary. The real GNP in
constant
dollars didn't decline over that period, either. The DoC figures are
available in both current and constant dollars.

In constant dollars (1982), average household income increased by
72.78% from 1964 to 1980. But during that same time, constant
dollar household costs (excluding energy costs) increased by 312%.

What do you mean by "constant dollar household costs"? I'm not familiar
with
that stat. Are you talking about household *expenditures*? If so, how
does
that relate to "costs"?

I'm talking about the cost of maintaining a household (middle class
living standard). That's calculated by adding the CPI to the amortized
cost of housing and the big ticket appliances.


Gack! CPI already INCLUDES the cost of housing (which is roughly 40% of the
CPI) and big ticket appliances. Why are you adding them again??

The CPI rise over the period 1964 to 1980 was 166%, not 312%. And, if you
want to make a meaningful comparison between household income and household
expenses, you have to use the CURRENT dollar values for income, not the
constant dollar values. If you calculate it right the two come into close
agreement, as they should.

Or are you talking about inflation?

Partially.

CPI includes ALL inflation. It IS mostly inflation. CPI is in current
dollars, not constant dollars. A CPI in constant dollars would be
meaningless. In fact, CPI is the DEFLATOR used to normalize other costs for
inflation.




I'll address the rest of this when I understand what you mean here.
Meantime, if you want a mainstream explanation of the '70s inflation
(which
sounds like what you're talking about), you can find one at:

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Art...ionofthes.html

This article just confirms that government used monetary policy
to keep unemployment below 3%. What it doesn't address is that
married women entered the workforce during this era in unpresidented
numbers, from less than 10% at its beginning to near 90% at its end.
That near doubling of workers seeking jobs is why the money supply
had to be allowed to expand so much and so fast.

Gary, your figures are cocked-up from start to finish. If you're claiming
that an increase in workers drove up costs, look at the total percentage of
working-age adults, the total of men and women, who were actually working
over that period of '64 - '80. It rose from roughly 54% to 58%. How does
that support an increase in the cost of maintaining a household?

Also, if you look at the increases in the percentage of adults who are
working over that period, and track it against inflation, you'll see that
the people entering the workforce LAGGED inflation. The two-worker families
were catching up to inflation, not driving it.

The percentage of adults in the workforce now is around 60%. We've reached a
stage at which a high percentage of those middle-class households now
require two workers, as I said at the beginning of this thread. But there's
no evidence that they've driven up prices. The inflated prices were the
leading factor, and the hefty inflation rates from the mid-'70s on were
clearly driven by fuel prices rising for peculiar reasons, not by excessive
demand.

Why are you introducing "money supply," BTW?

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

Along with the thoughts of Gary -

I'm generally pro Women working - but they brought us all another
stat - productivity level - it dropped and was forced upward by
government
and by industry. One reason, a large group moved into the workplace,
largely unskilled or newly skilled. I think this larger head count with
what ever the other measure outputs gave us all trouble.

I tend to expect like trouble due to the massive influx into the country
from many countries world wide.

Martin
--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder


Gary Coffman wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 23:45:40 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Gary R Coffman" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:24:37 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
Well, then, examine it in constant dollars, Gary. The real GNP in
constant
dollars didn't decline over that period, either. The DoC figures are
available in both current and constant dollars.

In constant dollars (1982), average household income increased by
72.78% from 1964 to 1980. But during that same time, constant
dollar household costs (excluding energy costs) increased by 312%.

What do you mean by "constant dollar household costs"? I'm not familiar with
that stat. Are you talking about household *expenditures*? If so, how does
that relate to "costs"?

I'm talking about the cost of maintaining a household (middle class
living standard). That's calculated by adding the CPI to the amortized
cost of housing and the big ticket appliances.

Or are you talking about inflation?

Partially.

I'll address the rest of this when I understand what you mean here.
Meantime, if you want a mainstream explanation of the '70s inflation (which
sounds like what you're talking about), you can find one at:

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Art...ionofthes.html

This article just confirms that government used monetary policy
to keep unemployment below 3%. What it doesn't address is that
married women entered the workforce during this era in unpresidented
numbers, from less than 10% at its beginning to near 90% at its end.
That near doubling of workers seeking jobs is why the money supply
had to be allowed to expand so much and so fast.

Gary

In article , David L Peterson
says...

The general public is getting dumber and dumber. Most the
population lives in a world of magic and black boxes. Tehy don't care
how or why thigns work, they just want things to make life easier and
more entertaining.

To be somewhat fair one would have to point out this has
always been true to some degree. During the 20s the black
boxes were radios - and most folks had little idea what
was inside. Then the boxes became TVs, and again only
a small percentage of the population understood the
principles.

I think you are certainly correct though that now most of
the average US citizen's day is occupied with manipulating
machines that are completely obscure to the operator, as
far as the real internal workings go.

The difference is, in the 30s there might have been one
or two items that fit that catagory, and they were strictly
amusement or pleasure devices. Now nearly eveyone simply
cannot do their job when the worm shuts down their computer
network or the power goes off. No gas for the car? No
way to get around. The technology basically has a full
turn around the workers and is starting to squeeze. This
is how constrictors work.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Along with the thoughts of Gary -

I'm generally pro Women working - but they brought us all another
stat - productivity level - it dropped and was forced upward by
government
and by industry. One reason, a large group moved into the workplace,
largely unskilled or newly skilled. I think this larger head count with
what ever the other measure outputs gave us all trouble.

I tend to expect like trouble due to the massive influx into the country
from many countries world wide.

I have no idea what the effect of women workers is on productivity, Martin,
nor do I know where you would get that information. Do you have facts and
figures to back it up?

Here's a point you have to keep in mind when you're looking at productivity
figures: Unless you're talking about extreme effects that are related to
very low wages, as in China, the education level, skill level, and work
habits of labor have practically nothing to do with a country's
productivity. It's almost exclusively a function of the way capital is
employed and how business organizes its use of labor.

As for government, its effects on productivity are indirect, by way of labor
laws, financial regulations, and so on. In modern societies with advanced
economies, government's effect on productivity tends to be much less
important than the effect of capital investment.


Ed Huntress

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 04:18:16 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

That's exactly what I've run into with Congress. They're so afraid that the
facts will lead them to a protectionist answer, or to an admission that
they're willing to just let our manufacturing go to hell, that they're
falling all over themselves to avoid either. Pressed from both sides,
they've squirted out in the direction of least resistance. Quite a few of
them have now become "fair traders," who focus on 5% solutions to 95%
problems. A fair-trader often is a former free-trader who doesn't quite get
it yet. "Fair trade" is a comfortable answer because they know that it's an
endless debate that will keep them from ever having to face squarely the
consequences of trying to compete with a country that makes decent products
while paying 80 cent/hour wages.

Ed Huntress


Ed, I've been following this and picking up a lot, I'll admit that a
lot of this is simply over my head, and I don't want to ask a bunch of
stupid questions, but I keep hearing this 80 cent/hour wages thing
and it gets me thinking.

1. What part of the cost of our products are due to taxes? Everyone
has heard the old "Companies don't pay taxes, the people who buy their
products (and I assume services) do". Are our products actually that
much more expensive than theirs mainly because of differences in labor
costs? How much of labor costs are actually taxes? Seems I don't get
to spend what they claimed to have paid me... That lump that gets
withheld, is there a percent of the 80 cents that gets held (or taxed
later), or should I actually compare that 80 cents to 2/3 of my wages.

2. what does this 80 cnets an hour buy in china? I know I could look
up stats for most of this stuff, but I don't know what the numbers
published take into account and I know you have researced thsi stuff
enough to have a good understanding of real situations and not just
comparing published numbers. I know 80 cents an hour wouldn't buy
much here. Does insurance cost as much in china? Do people even have
it? What does healthcare cost? How do they support the elderly? Do
they jsut do like we did here years back and take care of things the
best you can at home and try to stay in good health so youdon't die
any earlier than you need to?

3. When we say manufacturing jobs what positions are we talking
about? Just the actual semi-skilled laborors? Do they have the same
distribution of wages for other positions within the manufacturing
sector? Would a design engineer (that's me.) be makiing say $1.77 an
hour or is it a different distribution.

Here's my non qualitative ramble: I worked for a company that made
electric forklifts (Yeah, got laid off, long story, times kinda seem
to suck right now) and we used these big heavy right angle gearboxes
as final drives. These were our design and we had them made in the us
for quite a while. Then we went to china. It just seems like
something is wrong in the world when heavy gearbox that could be made
in town is cheaper to get made halfway around the world , put in a
boat (or for quick turnaround an airplane) and shipped to us here.
Our plant has moved operations to chicago where it is an assembly only
plant. (we used to make nearly everythign in house, they wanted to
get away from that......) for a while they were having frames and
mast weldments made in Mexico, but they had trouble with quality and
are now getting them from eastern europian countries. This just blows
me away that relatively simple welded frames (I did a lot of design
work on them, including a complete redesign to reduce cost) for heavy
forklifts (the frames can be better than 10,000 lb, when you are
building a forklift you make everything beefy, it's all counterweight.
). Are cheaper to have built in eastern europe and shipped to us
then make them right here in the middle of the country where steel is
relatively cheap and shipping costs are low. It seems to me that
something is very wrong to make this make sense. If you suggested
that his would happen to someone back in the forties I'm guessign
they'd outright laugh at you. I'm thinking it's not China, feels like
it's us and a lot of other countries are taking advantage of our
stupidity.

Dave

On 13 Aug 2003 10:06:36 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gary R Coffman says...

... but more
people are earning enough to shop at Walmart (many getting an employee
discount too).

Mmmm. So let me get this straight, in about ten years,
we're all gonna be simultaneously employed by wal-mart,
and do all our shopping there as well?

Somehow, someplace, there's something wrong with
this picture.

Jim

================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

Booming voice, "JIM, cleanup in aisle four!".

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:24:01 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gary R Coffman
says...

Remember that the number
of lawyers is also expanding exponentially.

OK. So we will all be either working for wal-mart
or its equivalent, doing all our shopping there,
and also moonlighting as lawyers - suing each
other.

Somehow this seems like a rather bleak picture.

My fallback position is one described by a Rutgers professor a few years
ago. He said that getting hit by a car in New Jersey is treated with as much
glee as winning the lottery. So I figure that, if I get laid off, I'll be
crossing a lot of streets in crowded, low-speed-limit zones.

Ed Huntress



And you better do it quick before you can't afford to pay your
insurance premiums.....

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:54:39 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:


Yet another factor is the evolution of focus
in today's business world. Today, the attitude seems to be
"make as much money as possible for us and for the
shareholders and who cares what the product is". While
the purpose of business has ALWAYS been to make money,
it seems to me that 30 years ago, there was a pride of
product in that process. The atttitude seemed to be
more that of "Let's make a great product, that folks will
be REALLY attracted to, and make a ton of money off it".

That was one I really wrestled with as a design engineer. If I can
make something better without increasing the cost I want to. (Or,
even better, make an improvement that people are willing to pay more
for) That was my goal. My most recent boss had the mindset you have
been describing, seems odd for a director of engineering to not want a
particularly god product. "You don't have to be better than anybody
else, you just have to be as cheap or cheaper and not any worse." he
claimed that customers will look at the bottom line (now, not future
expenses) and buy what's cheapest. We argued a little with him and
somebody brought up Honda as an example and said they make good stuff
that really just keeps on running. My boss claimed that Honda's
success has nothing to do with the product, but that they had a
superior marketing department. Major downer for a design guy to get
this kind of stuff from a guy who is supposed to direct him. Hard to
respect someone like that. But, I think people like him in positions
like that are all too common in the US today. I honeslty think he
was'nt too far departed from a lot of his contemporaries. I belive he
and another middle management manufacturing director basically steered
our company into a direction where the plant was closed and re-opened
in chagao as an assembly only plant and all the parts were outsourced
(mostly overseas). I got laid off. Still looking for something good
in my area (unwilling to move yet, stubbern, lots of family here).
This manager of mine who believed in building an inferior product and
selling it cheap was hired at another manufacturin company, wonder if
they will go the same way......

Combining that with the fact that today's world is
a lot tougher for business, what with the increased
costs, smaller margins and almost cancer-like growth
of government bureaucracy, regulations and laws, really
forces the American businessman to outsource as
much of the work as possible. Paying an American
worker $15 or more an hour to sew pants might
destroy a business, whereas paying someone in
a Third World nation $5/day to produce the same
thing means that they show great profits.
Speaking of cancer, another factor in this whole
bag of worms is the attitude that the only way
a company can be considered "good" is if it shows
a growth of return in every Quarter. If a
company returns the same dividend for two or
three quarters in a row, it is looked upon with
suspicion, and, the stock's value may fall. It
has been my observation that the only thing that
grows continually is cancer...and we KNOW how
good that is for an organism.

Amen

The bottom line is that as long as Americans
follow the path where continual, growing returns on
investments; always searching for the lowest price;
and folks that work with their hands are looked upon
with scorn are the rules of the game, our jobs will
continue to vanish overseas.

Right now I'm using my hands to support myself (some woodworking, some
metalworking, some farm work), I know people in positions like I had
who don't know how to use their hands. Gonna be more competition in
the burger flipping (no reletive experience necessary) sector if
things keep going this way.

At some point, I expect that things will
collapse, simply because if all the revenue sources
are gone, we will not have the bucks to buy those
imports from overseas, and, our country will appear
weak enough to be easy pickings for one of the other
countries in the world. That will be a time of
serious chaos for America...and one that I am
not sure can be avoided.
Regards
Dave Mundt

I think about stuff like that and wish I was older. As it is I think
I'm gonna get to see things get a lot worse before I check out.

Dave

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 22:23:45 -0500, David L Peterson wrote:
I jsut keep thinking of the old Jules Verne story where they mine a
shaft, hire masons to build a piller in the middle, have an army of
small foundrys all pour at once to create a giant cannon. Seems we
have the sort of technology to do that for real now. Maybe have giant
underground resivours that you fill with compressed air and a giant
dump gate. Or a giant version of my propane fired potato gun!
Seems you could get some pretty good initial velocity by the time the
thing would breach the surface. With all the experience we've had
tunneling I don't see why we couldn't build a giant underground
version of the kentucky rifle. and desing the pressure system to take
full advantage of the length. Just something I've thought about. I
havn't done the numbers, but I know that any initial speed means less
fuel needed onboard.

The projectile in the cannon barrel can't exceed the speed of sound
in the barrel. With normal propellants at temperatures and pressures
tolerable by any reasonable launch vehicle, you could only get about
2700 MPH (about 4,000 fps). You could do a bit better with staged
charges (ala Gerald Bull's Supergun).

But even 2700 MPH is too fast to slam a launcher into sea level
atmosphere. The launcher would still have to be mostly fuel tanks,
and they're rather fragile things. The muzzle would have to extend
about 8 miles up to make entry into the atmosphere at that speed
tolerable.

Now an 8 mile high cannon is a lot of work to only gain 2700 MPH
(you need a bit more than 18,000 MPH to reach low orbit). I don't
see it as being cost effective. Fuel is the smallest major expense
of launching a payload anyway.

Gary

"David L Peterson" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 04:18:16 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

That's exactly what I've run into with Congress. They're so afraid that
the
facts will lead them to a protectionist answer, or to an admission that
they're willing to just let our manufacturing go to hell, that they're
falling all over themselves to avoid either. Pressed from both sides,
they've squirted out in the direction of least resistance. Quite a few of
them have now become "fair traders," who focus on 5% solutions to 95%
problems. A fair-trader often is a former free-trader who doesn't quite
get
it yet. "Fair trade" is a comfortable answer because they know that it's
an
endless debate that will keep them from ever having to face squarely the
consequences of trying to compete with a country that makes decent
products
while paying 80 cent/hour wages.

Ed Huntress


Ed, I've been following this and picking up a lot, I'll admit that a
lot of this is simply over my head, and I don't want to ask a bunch of
stupid questions, but I keep hearing this 80 cent/hour wages thing
and it gets me thinking.

These are excellent questions, Dave, but I'm leaving town in a couple of
hours and I can't do them justice now.

I'll try to hit some high points:


1. What part of the cost of our products are due to taxes?

This one can be argued until the cows come home, and I've never tried to
sort out the arguments. The arguments are about the effects of pass-alongs,
which supposedly have a cumulative effect. But they also have the
consequence of *reducing* other costs, because some part of them go to
infrastructure, benefits that we'd otherwise pay out of our own pockets, and
so on.

The bottom line, though, is easy. Taxes are nearly irrelevant as a
competitive issue. I posted a table of the relative tax rates (individual
and business) for our major trading partners here (probably on
alt.machines.cnc, actually) a month ago or so, including those for China,
and it was clear that we're all in the same ballpark. The differences that
do exist have an effect on relative competitiveness with countries that face
similar costs, such as the countries of Europe, but they are insignificant
where there are vast cost differences, as with China and India.


Are our products actually that
much more expensive than theirs mainly because of differences in labor
costs?

Yes. Lower wages percolate throughout an economy. Nearly everything is
cheaper in China, except for things they import.

2. what does this 80 cnets an hour buy in china? I know I could look
up stats for most of this stuff, but I don't know what the numbers
published take into account and I know you have researced thsi stuff
enough to have a good understanding of real situations and not just
comparing published numbers.

It's hard to make a direct comparison, but you apparently can live quite
decently on 80 cents/hour in China. Maybe Hamei will give you some examples.

As for healthcare and other benefits, it varies all over the map. China
actually has multiple economies. If you work for a foreign multinational in
China, the company is required to pay 15% of your wages into a healthcare
fund. I don't know how it's handled by domestic companies.


3. When we say manufacturing jobs what positions are we talking
about? Just the actual semi-skilled laborors? Do they have the same
distribution of wages for other positions within the manufacturing
sector? Would a design engineer (that's me.) be makiing say $1.77 an
hour or is it a different distribution.

The 80 cents/hour figure is based on the wages paid a moldmaker by one of
the companies I inquired about. It seems to be a fair average for fairly
skilled workers in coastal cities. The official minimum wage is $0.31/hour,
but "illegal immigrants" (rural peasants who illegally move to the cities)
are paid much less. So are assembly workers in the interior.

I've heard that engineers make up to $2/hour. A company's chief engineer may
make up to $10,000/year, but that's very rare. I gather it's something like
making $150,000/year here.

Your questions about Eastern Europe and Mexico are good ones, but I can't
really address them without looking up a lot of numbers. If they're still an
issue next week, try me then.

I'm off to Cooperstown to look at some old baseballs. Hasta la vista.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

In article , Gary Coffman says...

The projectile in the cannon barrel can't exceed the speed of sound
in the barrel. With normal propellants at temperatures and pressures
tolerable by any reasonable launch vehicle, you could only get about
2700 MPH (about 4,000 fps). You could do a bit better with staged
charges (ala Gerald Bull's Supergun).

The germans were doing this during ww2 IIRC, with a long
barrel in the mountainside, and multiple staged charges
along its length.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 20 Aug 2003 21:15:01 -0700, jim rozen
pixelated:

In article , David L Peterson
says...

The general public is getting dumber and dumber. Most the
population lives in a world of magic and black boxes. Tehy don't care
how or why thigns work, they just want things to make life easier and
more entertaining.

To be somewhat fair one would have to point out this has
always been true to some degree.

Consider this test from 100 years ago vs. current kids.
They didn't dumb down the entire class for the slowest
kid back then and look how many scientists/inventors it
produced. To wit:
--snip--
8th grade final - 1895

This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, KS, USA. It
was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley
Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the
Salina Journal.
8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895
********************************
Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no
Modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of
lie, play, and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that
you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
*****************************************
Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many
bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at
50cts/bushel, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary
levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104
for incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20
per metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance
around which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
********************************************
U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln,
Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800,
1849,1865.
**********************************************
Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography,
etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph,
subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u.'
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two
exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word:
bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and
name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd,
cell, rise,blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane,
fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation
by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
********************************************
Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver,
Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and
Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same
latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the
sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the
earth.
**********************************************
Also notice that the exam took six hours to complete. Gives the saying
"he only had an 8th grade education" a whole new meaning, doesn't it?
--snip--


The difference is, in the 30s there might have been one
or two items that fit that catagory, and they were strictly
amusement or pleasure devices. Now nearly eveyone simply
cannot do their job when the worm shuts down their computer
network or the power goes off. No gas for the car? No
way to get around. The technology basically has a full
turn around the workers and is starting to squeeze. This
is how constrictors work.

Did someone mention Texas oil and its "boa" owners? Even
electricity in the West can't get made without their old
natural gas pipelines.

-
The advantage of exercising every day is that you die healthier.
------------
http://diversify.com Dynamic Websites, PHP Apps, MySQL databases

The Big Business bean counters are trying to eliminate the US Worker from
the work force. They have got the government to set a loophole in
immigrations laws so they can import cheap labor.

American workers are now training the immigrant workers who are doing them
out of their jobs. after the training is complete the trainer is laid off or
their job is eliminated. I always thought there were caps on immigration but
where there is a need in the workforce there is no cap.

The other jobs small - large manufacturing jobs are sent off to NAFTA
countries. We are just being phased out and we're so complacent about it
that no-one is lifting a finger to stop it.

tHAT



"David L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 02:17:54 -0000, (Ron Bean)
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" writes:

No, I didn't say we don't benefit from innovation. I said that relying
on
innovation to compete with 80-cent/hr. wage rates is an artifact of the
past. It doesn't work as a general method for competing with low-wage
countries, now that our free-trade policies are having success in
breaking
down the barriers for capital flow.

Is the effect of a capital-flow deficit different from a
balance-of-trade-deficit?

Less capital would seem to mean fewer jobs, *unless* we can
create jobs that are less capital-intensive than the ones we're
losing (including the capital spent on education & training).
This seems to be what you're implying when you mention jobs in
the financial sector.

Back in 1987 Tom Peters wrote a book that argued (among other
things) that moving manufacturing overseas meant giving up an
important source of innovation, because a lot of it comes from
interactions between the design guys and the production guys,
which is difficult if they're on different continents.

Of course you can always move the design people overseas as well.
Then all that's left for us to do is consume the result-- unless
too many of us are unemployed (oops).

The service sector is said to be doing well, but it's hard to
increase productivity when services have to be rendered in person.
And all wealth comes from productivity.

manufacturing has gone overseas. Computer programming is mostly off
shore. Design work is headed there. Thing is pretty quick you will
have the overseas companies enjoying that interaction between
production and design..... So much for our being the innovative ones.
Also, in addition to the interaction thing, I think there is something
to be said about being able to learn as you move from one job (or
position) to another. There are people who are saying the US will
still lead in the innovative and high tech areas. Bull. the people
who work in the high tech areas had to start somewhere and not just
college, the best design guys have some good solid hands on (perhaps
unofficial) experience. They often work for a while while in school
or after gaduation in the less high tech stuff and get some practical
experience. How these guys gonna do this when everything mundane goes
overseas? You can't just jump to the pinnicle of design and
manufacturing. That's like expecting someone to instantly be able to
hand make fine high quality swords without first learning how to do
simple metalwork. Some people have it in their heads that since we
are americans in the good ol USA that we will always be the innovators
of the world. That we will never be anyplace but on top, no matter
how stupid, fat, lazy, taxed, wrapped in red tape, and passive we
become. We've been coasting for some time now and I think things are
going to go downhill a lot worse before this all washes out. France
used to be the mecca for the enlightened, now they are a joke. Our
countries have some common histories. Look at the power of the
brittish empire...... They used to be like the only world power too.
I don't think we are near as special or infllable as we as a country
believe.
The general public is getting dumber and dumber. Most the
population lives in a world of magic and black boxes. Tehy don't care
how or why thigns work, they just want things to make life easier and
more entertaining. They apply this same reasoning to politics, they
don't care how or why our government works (or even if it does), they
just want results, for them, now. And will follow anyone who promises
just that, something for nothing.
I made a friend of mine laugh a while back when we were leaving the
local Menards store ( I know, they suck, but they don't have any good
competition here so I have to go there for some things). we bought
our stuff and headed for the doors. as we approached there was a
croud of people, maybe 25 just standing in front of the automatic
door, it wasn't automatic-ing and everyone just stood there like
cattle. I just walked in front of all of them, grabbed the door and
pulled it open, and walked through. The croud followed us out. I
overheard someone say, "Oh, I guess you could just do that...". I
have this mental image of these people sometime in the future when
things top working. They are the kind of people who would starve to
death by an empty vending machine under a tree full of apples.

I thik our education system is doing too much touchy feely make you
feel good about yourself crap and not enough of actual content. Ive
seen copies of tests from old prarie schools, mostly practical stuff
and pretty comprehensive. to tell the truth I think I'd have done
poorly on a lot of it, most people today wouldn't even begin to know
how to approach some of the stuff. Tehy don't bother teachign what
they think you won't need to know because someone else (or a machine)
will take care of it for you. I think a lot of forign countries are
teaching a lot like we did in the thirties and fourties. Hmmm, and
they seem to be ramping up and we seem to be declining. Geez, we
better plunge headfirst furhter down the path we are on so we can
catch up again..........

Ok, rant over.

Dave

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:08:20 -0700, "Anon Ymous"
wrote:

The Big Business bean counters are trying to eliminate the US Worker from
the work force. They have got the government to set a loophole in
immigrations laws so they can import cheap labor.

American workers are now training the immigrant workers who are doing them
out of their jobs. after the training is complete the trainer is laid off or
their job is eliminated. I always thought there were caps on immigration but
where there is a need in the workforce there is no cap.

The other jobs small - large manufacturing jobs are sent off to NAFTA
countries. We are just being phased out and we're so complacent about it
that no-one is lifting a finger to stop it.

tHAT

Big business gets exactly what it wants by giving large amounts of
money to the campaigns of all candidates for public offices at all
levels of government. The elected officials know they will never raise
enough money for their next election campaign if they displease big
business in any way.

The flow of intellectual property from the United States to China and
India will stop when the western corporations realize the governments
of China and India are more powerful than 10 Divisions of lawyers in
the United States. China and India will expropriate the intellectual
property, automobile plants, and everything else without blinking an
eye when they consider it necessary or appropriate.