In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Now, do you want sarcasm, and to act like a bumpkin, or do you want to talk
about those economic ideas you raised?

Geeze Ed. It's 'only a newsgroup.' How come you
keep coming up with all those ideas and information.
I thought we were supposed to be just sitting around
the pickle barrel...

Hmm, remind self of new rule, check cerebrum at door
when entering.

Jim

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

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed
Huntress
says...

Now, do you want sarcasm, and to act like a bumpkin, or do you want to
talk
about those economic ideas you raised?

Geeze Ed. It's 'only a newsgroup.' How come you
keep coming up with all those ideas and information.

A youth wasted, reading books. And you know what I do all day, right? That's
25 years of research, to write around 500 articles. You can't pull them out
of your nose. g

I thought we were supposed to be just sitting around
the pickle barrel...

I try, I try...Lord knows, I try...


Hmm, remind self of new rule, check cerebrum at door
when entering.

It ain't removable. I was born with the non-replaceable model. I'm stuck
with it.

Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed
Huntress
says...

Now, do you want sarcasm, and to act like a bumpkin, or do you want to
talk
about those economic ideas you raised?

Geeze Ed. It's 'only a newsgroup.' How come you
keep coming up with all those ideas and information.
I thought we were supposed to be just sitting around
the pickle barrel...

Hmm, remind self of new rule, check cerebrum at door
when entering.

No need to, that would take all the fun out of it. But, there isn't much
going on here that's worth getting that mad about. And there isn't much
going on here that's worth loosing your sense of humor. And, you don't even
know me, why would my misc. opining be so bothersome? You deal with people
here that believe the world is flat, that man never set foot on the moon,
that Elvis shot JFK, the differences of opinion I have expressed should not
bother you guys so much. I harbor no hate and very little animosity to those
that disagree with me. This is the land of the free after all. I enjoy
seeing the take others have, even if I disagree. So fire away, just don't
take a differing opinion to mean the holder of the opinion is evil! : )

JTMcC, HOH (highly opinionated hillbilly)





Jim

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

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

The reason that Ken Lay isn't in prison right now is that the prosecution
has been having a hell of a time finding a law that he broke, and the only
way they're going to get him is to get someone else from Enron (at least
several someone-else's, actually, or he'll go scott-free) to turn state's
evidence. The financial evidence they have, which should get him 20 years if
there was real justice in the current regulations over executive fiduciary
responsibility, isn't worth squat, because everything that's on the books is
legal. That is to say, he isn't legally responsible for it.

This reminds me ever so much of the scene in _Animal_House_
where the one kid's car has been wrecked, and he's upset about
it. Then it gets pointed out that hey, they could just lie,
and say he lent it to them and they parked it outside, and
the next morning, it was just.... GONE! And John Belushi
pantomimes the whole thing.

Yep, the stockholders trusted Kenny Boy with the money,
he just left it outside one night, and the next morning,
all that money was just.... GONE! Somebody swiped it.
Doesn't matter who. It's gone though. Too bad.

How about reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act?

Geeze, *another* thing that wound up missing overnight!
Now just who was responsible for that going bye-bye?

Jim

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

"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

As I said, it WAS A JOKE.


Hey, John, after wisecracking about the people you "pity" and huffing around
about how you take advantage of opportunities while others don't, it might
be a good idea to fly a joke flag from your mast or something.

At least use an emoticon. They can be very helpful. For example:

d8-0 That means the Yankees are playing the Tigers and Soriano just walked.
Man on first.

d8-) Johnson hit one up the middle and moved Soriano to third. Runners on
the corners.

d:-) Jeeter just sac'd Johnson over to second. I've taken my reading glasses
off to get a better look.

:-)) Posada just hit a two-RBI single; Soriano and Jeeter home. No outs yet.
I've tossed my Yankees hat and my double chin is showing.

d:-Q Yanks are up 2-0. Recovered hat. Time for a smoke.

Get the idea? It's a very useful language. g

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

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...
"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...


You may want to consult the big stock holders about that. They'll tell
you
that the businesses are run for the CEO's and other top executives,

The CEO and other top executives ARE the people that actually run the
company.

Yeah, but that isn't what I said. I said they run it FOR the CEO's and top
execs., and, if you read your large-print edition of the Wall Street
Journal
every day, you'll learn that there are a hell of a lot of stockholders --
particularly big fund managers who have serious fiduciary
responsibilities -- who are screaming their heads off about it as we
speak.
They probably don't use the word "fiduciary" in the Flypaper Edition, but
you'll get the idea. g

Now Ed, you are being rude. True, I chose not to live in NY, but I have
lived in many places, some quite urban and urbane.


The human element guaranties that some will operate in a corrupt
self serving manner. As we have seen, some of those will be caught, and
serve time in prison, in spite of previous fame or position. Most, will
run
the business in a way to gain max benifit for the stockholder, that is
where
the money comes from.

Oh, come, all ye faithful...

John, the fact is (and this has been editorialized like crazy over the
past
year, in the financial press) that the corporate crooks are popping up
like
groundhogs on a sunny day because so many regulations have been dropped,
especially banking regulations, which has encouraged a whole swarm
of...er,
indiscretions, some of which have led to outright lawbreaking.

I'm pretty sure I haven't refuted that statement.



The reason that Ken Lay isn't in prison right now is that the prosecution
has been having a hell of a time finding a law that he broke, and the only
way they're going to get him is to get someone else from Enron (at least
several someone-else's, actually, or he'll go scott-free) to turn state's
evidence. The financial evidence they have, which should get him 20 years
if
there was real justice in the current regulations over executive fiduciary
responsibility, isn't worth squat, because everything that's on the books
is
legal. That is to say, he isn't legally responsible for it.

His final fate is still uncertain, the market has punished him quite a bit,
hopefully the legal system will too, we will see.


The "working stiffs" are 'way down the totem pole. Wealthy
individuals and institutional investors...

Those institutional investors are many times the "working stiff" that
you
say has little influence, an example, the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters
and Jointers (the carpenters union), is a huge investment machine, they
have
many billions to invest, all belonging to those working stiffs.

Yeah, that's nice. So the union has institutional clout. Is that who you
have your 401K with? Do they do what you tell them to do with your money?
Or
do they tell YOU what they're going to do with your money?

I don't have a 401K.




control the market. The 401K's are a
pile of money that other people use for their own purposes.

Of course they are! When you deposite money in the bank, buy a bond, or
invest in any vehicle available, someone is using your money for their
own
purposes, that's the whole point. In return, I get a return.

No, no, no. That isn't what I was talking about. The point is that your
401K
is being used for its voting power to control as much of the company as
possible. Whether it's being controlled in a way you might want is
problematic. In fact, it's probably invisible, as your institutional
investor strong-arms the BoD in the back room...


The actual 401K
holder is just there for the ride. He can check his investments all he
wants
but his control over anything is largely illusory.

He has control over what he invests his money in. Of course he doesn't
get
to run the company, he is an INVESTOR. He can and should expect a
reasonable
return on his money, he gets to choose when and where and even if he
invests. If you want to have "control", then start and run a company.
This
is totally seperate from the role of investor.

John, let me ask you this: What would you do if your investment stayed
flat,
or lost a little, with no dividends, and you learned that the CEO just
cashed in a stock option for $50 million and got a $12 million bonus for
his
miserable performance last year, which he jumped on the company Gulfstream
to take to his account in the Caymans?

Would you be a little ****ed? Might you want to take your stock investment
elsewhere? Where might that be? Maybe your sock? Because a whole lot of
those CEO's are packing off with their stock options and bonuses these
days,
and it's getting harder to find a company that won't **** you off -- if
you
really know what's going on there, that is.

I don't think I have ever defended crooked CEO's, I'm pretty sure I have
never defended any crook. I'm aware of what many CEO's and their cohorts
are doing to the companies they run, and don't condone much of it. In the
industry I often work in, oil & gas, or the popular term today "energy",
companies are on a path to disaster in search of the holy grail of the
moment - the next quarters returns. Planning for the long term health of an
"energy" company is becoming rare. My little company was working for Enron
when they crumpled by the way.




Yes, please tell us about the Enron executives who are doing time. g
What
kind of time is Ken Lay doing? His last big stock sale netted him
$101.3
million, which, by all accounts, he still has. It's probably some very
good
time indeed.

You let cases of unethical business practices taint the entire system.
On
this planet you will NEVER be free of greed and corruption, the best you
can
hope for is a reasonable amount of corrupt individuals being caught and
punished, hopefully persuading others that the choice to defraud and
cheat
others is a poor choice that can lead to ruin.

How about reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act? That will at least get their
sticky little fingers out of the big-time stock-hyping business. The
harder
you make it for them to be crooks, the better it will be.

Agreed, and the harsher the punishment for being a crook the better.




The "free market" system has its ups and downs. As a principle, it has
a
lot
going for it. If it were practiced according to the principles, it
would
be
terrific.

Name me ONE economy in the world where you would rather try and excell,
outside the U.S. People die trying to reach the shore, not because of
the
weather, because of the freedom, and freedom of opportunity.

Why should I name one? What does that have to do with the point, unless
your
position is that we have a stinking mess in our banking and corporate
management systems, but they have even bigger stinking messes elsewhere?

I'm pretty sure that comment had nothing to do with you or your comments, it
was a responce to that cat claiming that China is as free market as the U.S.


Is that where you are with this?



The valid argument here is over who is establishing the context. It
isn't
easy to see from the ground. Given the opportunities we have, many of
us
may
not care how the tune is being called. Many others do.

I pity anyone that thinks others are "calling their tune", you and only
you
are responsible for your position in this life, given the limitations of
your circumstances. At no time on earth has a population had the freedom
and
opportunity afforded you and I. I chose to try and take advantage of
that
opportunity, knowing it is less than perfect. Indeed, power brokers
wheel,
deal and operate at every level from my county planning and zoning dept.
to
the highest levels of international banking. I know and recognize these
things, I don't however let them affect my ability to enjoy my short
little
life or my pursuit of my version of the "American Dream".

I don't either, John. I just try to avoid self-delusions. In fact, I spend
a
large part of my week studying such things, including whose pockets are
being lined with money from your 401K, which should be going to you.

I'm pretty sure you're not talking specifically about "my" 401K, but again I
don't have one

JTMcC, uneducated hick : )



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

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...
"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

As I said, it WAS A JOKE.


Hey, John, after wisecracking about the people you "pity"

It really wasn't a wisecrack, I feel sorry for folks who think they have
little or no control over their own fate.


and huffing around
about how you take advantage of opportunities while others don't,

I really wasn't huffing either, Most everyone I know is taking advantage of
the opportunities available, I probably appreciate them as much or more than
most though.

it might
be a good idea to fly a joke flag from your mast or something.

That would be a good idea : ) and my wife would agree heartily as she often
comments that my sense of humor is exceedingly dry ; ), see, I'm getting the
hang of it already!

JTMcC, long time Royals fan.


At least use an emoticon. They can be very helpful. For example:

d8-0 That means the Yankees are playing the Tigers and Soriano just
walked.
Man on first.

d8-) Johnson hit one up the middle and moved Soriano to third. Runners on
the corners.

d:-) Jeeter just sac'd Johnson over to second. I've taken my reading
glasses
off to get a better look.

:-)) Posada just hit a two-RBI single; Soriano and Jeeter home. No outs
yet.
I've tossed my Yankees hat and my double chin is showing.

d:-Q Yanks are up 2-0. Recovered hat. Time for a smoke.

Get the idea? It's a very useful language. g

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

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...

How about reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act?

Geeze, *another* thing that wound up missing overnight!
Now just who was responsible for that going bye-bye?

Alan Greenspan, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and the usual cast
of reprobates on the Senate Banking Committee. Oh, and Bill Clinton.

Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Oh, and Bill Clinton.

There it is, proof that this stuff cuts across
party lines. All those folks are whores, pure and
simple. Just wave a million bucks under their
nose, and they'll jump through *any* hoop.

Jim

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

"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

They probably don't use the word "fiduciary" in the Flypaper Edition,
but
you'll get the idea. g

Now Ed, you are being rude. True, I chose not to live in NY, but I have
lived in many places, some quite urban and urbane.

Oh, bull, John. After telling me how you "pity me" for what I think, you're
going to call it rude for me to toss the wisecracks back? You may know when
you're joking, but it doesn't sound like joking to me. Is this a joke you're
making now?

I'll assume it is. Try an emoticon or something, will ya'?

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...
"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

They probably don't use the word "fiduciary" in the Flypaper Edition,
but
you'll get the idea. g

Now Ed, you are being rude. True, I chose not to live in NY, but I have
lived in many places, some quite urban and urbane.

Oh, bull, John. After telling me how you "pity me" for what I think,
you're
going to call it rude for me to toss the wisecracks back? You may know
when
you're joking, but it doesn't sound like joking to me. Is this a joke
you're
making now?

I'll assume it is. Try an emoticon or something, will ya'?

No, it's not a joke. Re read what I said, I pity anyone that thinks others
are "calling their tune". If that's you, so be it, if that's not you, then
what is the problem? Of course there are factors and situations that I can't
control, and of course there are bad people, doing bad things, and of course
I should fight these injustices with the means available to me but I am in
control of my life, I am responsible for my successes and my failures. I get
to call my own tune and I'm glad.

JTMcC.



Ed Huntress

Ed, Are you causing trouble again?

Folks, you have to excuse Ed. He takes his economics seriously, and
seeing how times are difficult, a little concentration on economics
couldnt hurt anyone.

Its also a little understandable that in a discussion of economics, to
hear someone question the validity of "The Economist" is a bit absurd
sounding, since it is the most prestigous economic publication on the
open market world over.

True Non-political economists will always read "the economist",
because even the Political situations that are discussed are tied
into economics in a way we just dont see in other publications.

Ed, Flypaper country?


BG


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message v.net...
"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

If you are in the beltway,...

NYC suburbs, actually.

...and these are the type of folks you spend your
day with, it's no wonder your thinking is so.......skewed.

JTMcC, in flyover country, where the real people live.

Ah, that explains it. You get different additions of The Economist and the
Wall Street Journal out there, The Flypaper Editions, printed with special
sensitivity for people in Flyover Country, including shorter words and
bigger type.

Listen, JT, your sarcasm falls a little flat if your idea of an argument is
that you know more about what you're talking about because you live in
flypaper country. As soon as you opened your mouth I could tell that you've
been raised on a diet of sophomoric aphorisms about economics, but I was
trying to be polite.

Now, do you want sarcasm, and to act like a bumpkin, or do you want to talk
about those economic ideas you raised? I can do sarcasm, if that's what you
want. But I'd rather not.

Ed Huntress

I agree with you. I was not trying to say that you can compete in all
cases by reducing only your own labor costs. But was trying to
emphasize that manufacturing jobs would go away even if no jobs were
exported. In some cases you can compete with China and in other cases
you can not. But in every case to compete you need to wring out as
much of the labor costs as you can.

Yesterday I had some gravel spread on the driveway. One truck comes
with a trailer. The driver unhooks the truck from the trailer and
spreads the load on the truck. Then hooks up to the trailer and
transfers the part of the trailer holding the gravel to the truck, and
spreads that gravel. Hooks back to the truck and transfers the
container back to the trailer and drives off. Result one truck driver
delivers and spreads essentially two truck loads of gravel.
One less truck driving job.

Dan


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message v.net...
"Dan Caster" wrote in message
m...
Part of my point is that it is not just jobs going overseas. You can
be competitive by being so efficent that labor is a small part of the
cost.

There's one point that's worth clarifying here, Dan. The direct labor in
manufacturing runs around 10 - 12% in many segments, and it's a common thing
to conclude that this can easily be overcome by improvements in
productivity.

Ed Huntress

I'm not sure I believe some of these statements:

First: 85% - 20%. Sounds like a restatement of the 80/20 rule. Unless someone
has a database with over 270+ million names in it (US only now), with direct
ties to their investments, I think this is voodoo (bogus) journalism. Let's see
some facts here. And I dare them to make the info public domain, peer reviewed,
etc.

1% - 38% wealth. Same argument One could ask the question "are these
individuals or instuitions that control this wealth?" Where's the data (beef)?

10%-15% control. This could be true, but stockholders have a nasty habit of
dumping companies that don't show a profit reflected in increased stock value,
or pay dividends, and in the good old US that works quite well as a coporate
firing squad.

Can you site documented sources to verify? (something more than some British
periodical)?

Ed, this sounds like a Democrat (gasp) commercial.

Mike Eberlein (who always wanted to be a CEO, (nah! just the money), but finally
realized that he ain't going to make it)

..

Ed Huntress wrote:

....SNIP
As for the 401K's, that's another myth. 85% of stock market wealth is held
by 20% of the people. The top 1% have 38% of the wealth (see this week's
issue of The Economist), and 10% to 15% of any big company's stock,
depending on the company, is usually enough to exercise control over a board
of directors

"bg" wrote in message
om...
Ed, Are you causing trouble again?

Folks, you have to excuse Ed. He takes his economics seriously, and
seeing how times are difficult, a little concentration on economics
couldnt hurt anyone.

Its also a little understandable that in a discussion of economics, to
hear someone question the validity of "The Economist" is a bit absurd
sounding, since it is the most prestigous economic publication on the
open market world over.

True Non-political economists will always read "the economist",
because even the Political situations that are discussed are tied
into economics in a way we just dont see in other publications.

Ed, Flypaper country?

Ya' like that one? I like it. Maybe I'll trademark it. Do you think I could
sell it to Paul Krugman? g

Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress wrote:
"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed
Huntress
says... Oh, and Bill Clinton.

There it is, proof that this stuff cuts across
party lines. All those folks are whores, pure and
simple. Just wave a million bucks under their
nose, and they'll jump through *any* hoop.

Well, I think you're being a little rough on them here, Jim. As for the
[....]
But the problem really is a dogmatic and ideological strain of economic
thought. Economists call it Neoliberal Economics and pundits call it the
[....]
You don't have to be crooked to be an ideologue. I don't think Bush II is
crooked about it, either. They're just ideologues who see everything through
their belief filter, twisting the facts to fit their beliefs, rather than
seeing things as they are and then checking to see if their beliefs fit the
reality. There's no reality check on it because the True Believers can
select the reality they want to see, and thus make it fit their theories,
every time.

Ed sums up the "human condition" with this last paragraph, imho. taken
as a whole, the filter analogy (widely discussed in various forms over
the centuries) accounts for 95% of human behaviour. it probably explains
why we stand to lose our 'fredoom-loving' asses in Irag/Mid-East.

not our filter alone, but the collective filters of all combatants
(including Gentiles, Jews, atheists, secular interests and all Muslim
sects, and in all social strata). throw in, "search for agreement" and
you have 90% of the knowledge needed to write a doctoral thesis in
Philosophy or Theology. grin

this has been a great thread to read, thanks to all participants. --Loren

In article , Gary Coffman says...

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B21B5AD0D%2DC132%2D435F%2D8EF3%2D EB0F2D5630D9%7D&siteid=mktw

Here's the key quote, "This puts the U.S. economy in uncharted territory.
We have never had a sustained recovery without job creation."

No, the *real* key quote there, hidden in another link in that
article (to a study) is, and here I'm paraphrasing,

'there are two kinds of layoffs. Temporary, where the workers
are re-hired by the same company. And Permanent, where they
are not, and go on to be hired, eventually, by other companies.
Permanent layoffs cause jobs to disappear for much longer times
because it takes longer for companies to hire new workers, than
to re-hire the old ones.'

Basically what the study is saying is, "when a lot of folks get
fired, unemployment results."

Casey Stengle, thanks so much!

Jim

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

"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

No, it's not a joke. Re read what I said, I pity anyone that thinks others
are "calling their tune". If that's you, so be it, if that's not you, then
what is the problem?

Two problems: First, they're right, in terms of the larger economy. As I
said, a lot of people don't care. They're just interested in what's inside
of their own box. From that perspective, you have unlimited opportunity --
until you start to get big and bang up against the walls of the box. Then
you'll see what they mean.

Second, pity is a legitimate emotion if it's what you feel for someone who
was just robbed of his life's savings. If it's something you feel because
you think you understand something that they're just too obtuse to
recognize, it gets iffy. It may just be self-delusion feeding an arrogant
attitude, like the emotion one religious believer feels for someone with
different beliefs.

I should fight these injustices with the means available to me but I am
in
control of my life, I am responsible for my successes and my failures. I
get
to call my own tune and I'm glad.

Well, I'm glad for you, too, John.

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

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...
"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

"Koz" wrote in message
...
I just had to add a quick ramble here....

When 5% of the people hold 90% of the wealth in this country, most
business essentially operates to serve the interests of that 5%, not
the
other 90%.

I disagree, business operates to satisfy the stockholder, and today, in
the
U.S., that is every working stiff with a 401K or mutual fund investment,
plus a lot of small busnessmen who have their pension plan invested at
least
partially in stocks and bonds. The 1960's idea that only the idle rich
care
about stock prices is long gone, the man on the street is just as likely
to
check his investments as the tycoon.

You may want to consult the big stock holders about that. They'll tell you
that the businesses are run for the CEO's and other top executives, which
is
the reason the SEC and the Justice Dept. are promoting a new plan that
gives
stockholders more say in the way the boards and the businesses are run.
It's
part of the court-imposed reorganization for MCI/WorldCom. Whether it's
adopted as SEC rules is problematic. Politically, it's not in the cards
right now, even though most experts agree it's necessary. It doesn't go
down
well with "free market" conservatives.

As for the 401K's, that's another myth. 85% of stock market wealth is held
by 20% of the people. The top 1% have 38% of the wealth (see this week's
issue of The Economist), and 10% to 15% of any big company's stock,
depending on the company, is usually enough to exercise control over a
board
of directors . The "working stiffs" are 'way down the totem pole. Wealthy
individuals and institutional investors control the market. The 401K's are
a
pile of money that other people use for their own purposes. The actual
401K
holder is just there for the ride. He can check his investments all he
wants
but his control over anything is largely illusory.


The result is that the overall goal is to result in "short
term" profitability rather than overall business strength.

I disagree again, you assume that a small cadre of ultra rich are
running
the country to suite their fancy.

They are at least running the economy to suit their fancy.

The facts are that those running business
today answer to almost the entire spectrum of American society, look at
the
Enron executives either doing time or about to do time, in prison.

Yes, please tell us about the Enron executives who are doing time.

The last I heard Kopper was in the can, but of course that might of changed,
especially if he rats out his former partners in crime, and I'm sure he
will. I think he still gets prison time, even if he testifies tho. They got
10 million or so from him and are after a bunch more. I run into Enron
employees I know from time to time and they follow this situation a lot
closer than I do. They expect Kopper to put a bunch of people on the spot.
This might be old news, as I said, I don't follow it very close.

g What
kind of time is Ken Lay doing?

Lay may get away scott free, but as his high level underlings fall, his
position gets shakier.


JTMcC.



His last big stock sale netted him $101.3
million, which, by all accounts, he still has. It's probably some very
good
time indeed.

This should reafirm your flagging belief in the free market system as
practiced
in America.

Superficial facts lead to superficial conclusions. Dig deep, and you will
find a lot of muck in the way our economy is presently operating.

The "free market" system has its ups and downs. As a principle, it has a
lot
going for it. If it were practiced according to the principles, it would
be
terrific. But it's not, and the ways it's not are sometimes difficult to
root out. The facts are there, in financial reporting and economic
analysis,
but putting it all together and figuring out how it really works is not
something anyone can do from reports in the popular press or TV. It's a
cumulative thing you acquire from reading about corporate maneuverings at
the micro level, and about economic trends at the macro level. Even then,
the origins of power are not always easy to see.


Can you even
say that you are paid more and work about has hard as 20 years ago?

Of course I can.

As an individual, over a lifetime, of course you can expect to make more
money. But the wages in manufacturing, for example, have declined by 7.6%
in
real terms since 1972. Wasn't it all the "low-paying" jobs we were
supposed
to have sent to Mexico and China? Maybe someone made a mistake...

However, real *prices* for goods have actually declined quite a bit during
that time. We can buy more for the same money. It's not a simple issue.



As long as the government operates in a mode where decisions are made
with such a high focus on "short term profitability", as they
currently
do for that 5% who hold the 90% wealth, we will always be weak and
nationally insecure.

I am, and I believe WE are, neither. Keep your weakness and insecurity
to
your self, I am, and those I befriend and associate with, are NOT weak,
and
NOT insecure.

Attitude is important. Within the context we've been given, there's no
question that there are limitless opportunities, and a positive attitude
is
helpful in realizing them.

The valid argument here is over who is establishing the context. It isn't
easy to see from the ground. Given the opportunities we have, many of us
may
not care how the tune is being called. Many others do.

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

"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...
"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

"Koz" wrote in message
...
I just had to add a quick ramble here....

When 5% of the people hold 90% of the wealth in this country, most
business essentially operates to serve the interests of that 5%, not
the
other 90%.

I disagree, business operates to satisfy the stockholder, and today,
in
the
U.S., that is every working stiff with a 401K or mutual fund
investment,
plus a lot of small busnessmen who have their pension plan invested at
least
partially in stocks and bonds. The 1960's idea that only the idle rich
care
about stock prices is long gone, the man on the street is just as
likely
to
check his investments as the tycoon.

You may want to consult the big stock holders about that. They'll tell
you
that the businesses are run for the CEO's and other top executives,
which
is
the reason the SEC and the Justice Dept. are promoting a new plan that
gives
stockholders more say in the way the boards and the businesses are run.
It's
part of the court-imposed reorganization for MCI/WorldCom. Whether it's
adopted as SEC rules is problematic. Politically, it's not in the cards
right now, even though most experts agree it's necessary. It doesn't go
down
well with "free market" conservatives.

As for the 401K's, that's another myth. 85% of stock market wealth is
held
by 20% of the people. The top 1% have 38% of the wealth (see this week's
issue of The Economist), and 10% to 15% of any big company's stock,
depending on the company, is usually enough to exercise control over a
board
of directors . The "working stiffs" are 'way down the totem pole.
Wealthy
individuals and institutional investors control the market. The 401K's
are
a
pile of money that other people use for their own purposes. The actual
401K
holder is just there for the ride. He can check his investments all he
wants
but his control over anything is largely illusory.


The result is that the overall goal is to result in "short
term" profitability rather than overall business strength.

I disagree again, you assume that a small cadre of ultra rich are
running
the country to suite their fancy.

They are at least running the economy to suit their fancy.

The facts are that those running business
today answer to almost the entire spectrum of American society, look
at
the
Enron executives either doing time or about to do time, in prison.

Yes, please tell us about the Enron executives who are doing time.

The last I heard Kopper was in the can, but of course that might of
changed,
especially if he rats out his former partners in crime, and I'm sure he
will. I think he still gets prison time, even if he testifies tho. They
got
10 million or so from him and are after a bunch more. I run into Enron
employees I know from time to time and they follow this situation a lot
closer than I do. They expect Kopper to put a bunch of people on the spot.
This might be old news, as I said, I don't follow it very close.

g What
kind of time is Ken Lay doing?

Lay may get away scott free, but as his high level underlings fall, his
position gets shakier.

I see this morning that the Enron treasurer pled guilty and agreed to
cooperate with prosecutors. As they line up these fairly high level
"cooperators", hope rises that the top 2 or 3 will be convicted.

JTMcC.




JTMcC.



His last big stock sale netted him $101.3
million, which, by all accounts, he still has. It's probably some very
good
time indeed.

This should reafirm your flagging belief in the free market system as
practiced
in America.

Superficial facts lead to superficial conclusions. Dig deep, and you
will
find a lot of muck in the way our economy is presently operating.

The "free market" system has its ups and downs. As a principle, it has a
lot
going for it. If it were practiced according to the principles, it would
be
terrific. But it's not, and the ways it's not are sometimes difficult to
root out. The facts are there, in financial reporting and economic
analysis,
but putting it all together and figuring out how it really works is not
something anyone can do from reports in the popular press or TV. It's a
cumulative thing you acquire from reading about corporate maneuverings
at
the micro level, and about economic trends at the macro level. Even
then,
the origins of power are not always easy to see.


Can you even
say that you are paid more and work about has hard as 20 years ago?

Of course I can.

As an individual, over a lifetime, of course you can expect to make more
money. But the wages in manufacturing, for example, have declined by
7.6%
in
real terms since 1972. Wasn't it all the "low-paying" jobs we were
supposed
to have sent to Mexico and China? Maybe someone made a mistake...

However, real *prices* for goods have actually declined quite a bit
during
that time. We can buy more for the same money. It's not a simple issue.



As long as the government operates in a mode where decisions are
made
with such a high focus on "short term profitability", as they
currently
do for that 5% who hold the 90% wealth, we will always be weak and
nationally insecure.

I am, and I believe WE are, neither. Keep your weakness and insecurity
to
your self, I am, and those I befriend and associate with, are NOT
weak,
and
NOT insecure.

Attitude is important. Within the context we've been given, there's no
question that there are limitless opportunities, and a positive attitude
is
helpful in realizing them.

The valid argument here is over who is establishing the context. It
isn't
easy to see from the ground. Given the opportunities we have, many of us
may
not care how the tune is being called. Many others do.

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

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

... There is still no clear answer to which element
is driving which part of our unemployment these days: normal business-cycle
recession, running off excess capacity that reflected an *abnormal* economic
bubble, increased productivity, or low-cost imports. All of them are in play
at once.

Plus, the actual *unemployement* statistics seem to be
saying, there really isn't that much. Unemployement, that
is.

One set of statistics are saying that jobs are going away,
another one says that everyone who wants a job, has one.

Either a) this is complete bull****, b) the truth is somewhere
in the middle, or c) that's quite true.

For (a) above one might think that the folks who tote up the
actual unemployment stats have been pressured for years to
do things like remove workers from that catagory if they've
been out of work for more than a certain period, these being
the 'discouraged' workers, who are not getting counted. Or
workers who are 'self employed' now, a catagory that is much
on the rise, because they've lost their real jobs. Or one
of those recently quoted studies where the end result was
that some of the layoffs recently have been 'permanent' ie.
the workers were simply fired. And that it takes a lot longer
to re-hire fired workers than ones just put on plant slowdown,
because one needs to find jobs for them. Etc.

For (b) one can consider Gary's comments about how the
workforce really is shrinking, so both could be true at
the same time, to some degree. The idea that we maybe
don't need as many jobs as we thought we did.

(C)? That everything is just hunky-dory, and it will all
work out? I'm not betting on that one.

And it's percolated throughout our society. What most of us know about
economics is what we read in the papers or see on TV. And most of the people
who write about it in the popular press, or who read the news about it on
TV, have no idea what they're talking about.

Another good reason not to watch TV.

Jim

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

"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...
"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

"Koz" wrote in message
...
I just had to add a quick ramble here....

When 5% of the people hold 90% of the wealth in this country, most
business essentially operates to serve the interests of that 5%,
not
the
other 90%.

I disagree, business operates to satisfy the stockholder, and today,
in
the
U.S., that is every working stiff with a 401K or mutual fund
investment,
plus a lot of small busnessmen who have their pension plan invested
at
least
partially in stocks and bonds. The 1960's idea that only the idle
rich
care
about stock prices is long gone, the man on the street is just as
likely
to
check his investments as the tycoon.

You may want to consult the big stock holders about that. They'll tell
you
that the businesses are run for the CEO's and other top executives,
which
is
the reason the SEC and the Justice Dept. are promoting a new plan that
gives
stockholders more say in the way the boards and the businesses are
run.
It's
part of the court-imposed reorganization for MCI/WorldCom. Whether
it's
adopted as SEC rules is problematic. Politically, it's not in the
cards
right now, even though most experts agree it's necessary. It doesn't
go
down
well with "free market" conservatives.

As for the 401K's, that's another myth. 85% of stock market wealth is
held
by 20% of the people. The top 1% have 38% of the wealth (see this
week's
issue of The Economist), and 10% to 15% of any big company's stock,
depending on the company, is usually enough to exercise control over a
board
of directors . The "working stiffs" are 'way down the totem pole.
Wealthy
individuals and institutional investors control the market. The 401K's
are
a
pile of money that other people use for their own purposes. The actual
401K
holder is just there for the ride. He can check his investments all he
wants
but his control over anything is largely illusory.


The result is that the overall goal is to result in "short
term" profitability rather than overall business strength.

I disagree again, you assume that a small cadre of ultra rich are
running
the country to suite their fancy.

They are at least running the economy to suit their fancy.

The facts are that those running business
today answer to almost the entire spectrum of American society, look
at
the
Enron executives either doing time or about to do time, in prison.

Yes, please tell us about the Enron executives who are doing time.

The last I heard Kopper was in the can, but of course that might of
changed,
especially if he rats out his former partners in crime, and I'm sure he
will. I think he still gets prison time, even if he testifies tho. They
got
10 million or so from him and are after a bunch more. I run into Enron
employees I know from time to time and they follow this situation a lot
closer than I do. They expect Kopper to put a bunch of people on the
spot.
This might be old news, as I said, I don't follow it very close.

g What
kind of time is Ken Lay doing?

Lay may get away scott free, but as his high level underlings fall, his
position gets shakier.

I see this morning that the Enron treasurer pled guilty and agreed to
cooperate with prosecutors. As they line up these fairly high level
"cooperators", hope rises that the top 2 or 3 will be convicted.

JTMcC.

Now, this afternoon, they say he's not cooperating, but he was sentenced to
5 yrs. and lost $900,000.

JTMcC.




JTMcC.



His last big stock sale netted him $101.3
million, which, by all accounts, he still has. It's probably some very
good
time indeed.

This should reafirm your flagging belief in the free market system as
practiced
in America.

Superficial facts lead to superficial conclusions. Dig deep, and you
will
find a lot of muck in the way our economy is presently operating.

The "free market" system has its ups and downs. As a principle, it has
a
lot
going for it. If it were practiced according to the principles, it
would
be
terrific. But it's not, and the ways it's not are sometimes difficult
to
root out. The facts are there, in financial reporting and economic
analysis,
but putting it all together and figuring out how it really works is
not
something anyone can do from reports in the popular press or TV. It's
a
cumulative thing you acquire from reading about corporate maneuverings
at
the micro level, and about economic trends at the macro level. Even
then,
the origins of power are not always easy to see.


Can you even
say that you are paid more and work about has hard as 20 years
ago?

Of course I can.

As an individual, over a lifetime, of course you can expect to make
more
money. But the wages in manufacturing, for example, have declined by
7.6%
in
real terms since 1972. Wasn't it all the "low-paying" jobs we were
supposed
to have sent to Mexico and China? Maybe someone made a mistake...

However, real *prices* for goods have actually declined quite a bit
during
that time. We can buy more for the same money. It's not a simple
issue.



As long as the government operates in a mode where decisions are
made
with such a high focus on "short term profitability", as they
currently
do for that 5% who hold the 90% wealth, we will always be weak and
nationally insecure.

I am, and I believe WE are, neither. Keep your weakness and
insecurity
to
your self, I am, and those I befriend and associate with, are NOT
weak,
and
NOT insecure.

Attitude is important. Within the context we've been given, there's no
question that there are limitless opportunities, and a positive
attitude
is
helpful in realizing them.

The valid argument here is over who is establishing the context. It
isn't
easy to see from the ground. Given the opportunities we have, many of
us
may
not care how the tune is being called. Many others do.

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

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:59:52 GMT, "John T. McCracken"
wrote:

Now, this afternoon, they say he's not cooperating, but he was sentenced to
5 yrs. and lost $900,000.
And how much time actually spent inside? How much money was stolen
and what does that work out to as an hourly rate? How much would a
bank robber, taking .01% as much have got?
G

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
.net:


The disturbing thing, though, is that they should have to work
so damned hard just to get a conviction, when the known facts of
the case clearly make Lay and company out to be a bunch of
crooks. We've de-criminalized a lot of corporate theft since the
1980s, and a lot of people, from employees to stockholders to
the citizens of California, have paid for it. That should be the
cautionary tale in all of this.

Ed Huntress

The Feds are too busy prosecuting REAL criminals!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast...s.ap/index.htm
l

"H.C. Minh" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
.net:


The disturbing thing, though, is that they should have to work
so damned hard just to get a conviction, when the known facts of
the case clearly make Lay and company out to be a bunch of
crooks. We've de-criminalized a lot of corporate theft since the
1980s, and a lot of people, from employees to stockholders to
the citizens of California, have paid for it. That should be the
cautionary tale in all of this.

Ed Huntress

The Feds are too busy prosecuting REAL criminals!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast...s.ap/index.htm
l

Ah, jeez, how the mighty Chong has fallen. I'd rather that he lit up a joint
in court and told the judge to stick it up his nose. At least he'd maintain
his integrity.

But he's 65, so I guess he wants to spend his days out of jail as much as
possible.

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

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:25:51 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
pixelated:

"H.C. Minh" wrote in message
The Feds are too busy prosecuting REAL criminals!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast...s.ap/index.htm
l

Ah, jeez, how the mighty Chong has fallen. I'd rather that he lit up a joint
in court and told the judge to stick it up his nose. At least he'd maintain
his integrity.

But he's 65, so I guess he wants to spend his days out of jail as much as
possible.

Yeah, Tommy goes to prison while congress and the government go
free for far worse crimes against man and nature. There IS no
justice.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the term "Homo Sapiens" is a goal, not a description.
----
http://www.diversify.com Web Design for YOUR Business!
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Merely questioning Ed's comments implied as "facts." I've read the WSJ
for
considerably longer than 10 years (usually only 3 times a week, tho),
and
respect it's journalistic integrity far more than, say, the National
Inquirer,
but still question statements like the above when I see (or read) them.

Stock ownership in a publicly traded company is fairly closely tracked
in the
US, by law, so the data supporting the claim of corporate control is
probably
there if someone looks for it and knows where to find it.

I'd be curious about the definition of "wealth", and even more curious
about
the methodology used to determine the comment that "85% of stock market
wealth
is held by 20% of the people."

Ed, if you sold me a 1-2-3 block and told me the width was 1.0000 +/-
0.0005
inch, I could measure the part and confirm the statement as accurate.
My crack
about a Democrat(ic) commercial was based on my experience that the
Democrats
are more likely to come up with off-the-wall statistics (like this) to
support
whatever bleeding heart cause they champion than the other guys (guess
which
way I vote?). There is no reasonable way for the average guy to verify
the
statements.

When my daughter was about 12, she told my wife and I that she wanted to
go to
"CEO school", "'cause they make lots of money." After a good chuckle, I
realized that if I had had that attitude 30 years ago, and actively
pursued it,
I probably would be retired and floating on a yacht like several of my
friends
my same age who are doing just that.

Mike Eberlein (I am encouraging my daughter to consider Pharmacy as a
major in
college (she is a freshmen). Figure they can out source the pill
manufacturing
to China (or Mars), but they will still need the pill rollers).

Bet that most of the readers don't know who Casey Stengle is (was). Here is another link that demonstrates purely
objective journalism (chuckle).

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ience_ozone_dc

Mike Eberlein (always hated the Yankees, grew up in WI and worshiped the Milwaukee Braves, Eddie Mathews was my hero,
lefty, 3rd base, etc.)

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Gary Coffman says...

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B21B5AD0D%2DC132%2D435F%2D8EF3%2D EB0F2D5630D9%7D&siteid=mktw

Here's the key quote, "This puts the U.S. economy in uncharted territory.
We have never had a sustained recovery without job creation."

No, the *real* key quote there, hidden in another link in that
article (to a study) is, and here I'm paraphrasing,

'there are two kinds of layoffs. Temporary, where the workers
are re-hired by the same company. And Permanent, where they
are not, and go on to be hired, eventually, by other companies.
Permanent layoffs cause jobs to disappear for much longer times
because it takes longer for companies to hire new workers, than
to re-hire the old ones.'

Basically what the study is saying is, "when a lot of folks get
fired, unemployment results."

Casey Stengle, thanks so much!

Jim

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

Some of us are very "old" men`, excuse me old "persons."

Mike Eberlein

Loren Coe wrote:

In article , jim rozen wrote:
In article , mikee says...

Fastest growing occupations:
2000-2010: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.t06.htm

this page looks like OLD NEWS, imho. probably a study published
in 1999 or 2000 and never up dated(?).

Doesn't look bad for computer professionals according to this list. One
wonders
whether they have factored in the global outsourcing of these jobs, also.

Agree - all but *two* of those occupations have that
vaguely similar aroma about them - that they can
trivially be shipped overseas, especially given that
the work product can be imported without the use of a
container ship! Jim

the business news (cable) channels and politicians have all
recently jumped on the fact that skilled jobs are "going overseas",
duh.... also very OLD news. --Loren

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

"mikee" wrote in message
...

Merely questioning Ed's comments implied as "facts." I've read the WSJ
for
considerably longer than 10 years (usually only 3 times a week, tho),
and
respect it's journalistic integrity far more than, say, the National
Inquirer,
but still question statements like the above when I see (or read) them.

Stock ownership in a publicly traded company is fairly closely tracked
in the
US, by law, so the data supporting the claim of corporate control is
probably
there if someone looks for it and knows where to find it.

You'd have to look this one up from the other end, Mike. It isn't a question
of data. It's a question of knowing how leverage is applied in corporate
board elections. It doesn't require very much stock to control most
companies. You may recall that some of the LBO's from the early '80s were
accomplished with only 1% or 2% of the common stock in the purchasers'
hands.


I'd be curious about the definition of "wealth", and even more curious
about
the methodology used to determine the comment that "85% of stock market
wealth
is held by 20% of the people."

Well, let your curiosity be piqued no mo the data in this particular
article is attributed to the Economic Policy Institute. You can look them up
on the Web.


Ed, if you sold me a 1-2-3 block and told me the width was 1.0000 +/-
0.0005
inch, I could measure the part and confirm the statement as accurate.
My crack
about a Democrat(ic) commercial was based on my experience that the
Democrats
are more likely to come up with off-the-wall statistics (like this) to
support
whatever bleeding heart cause they champion than the other guys (guess
which
way I vote?). There is no reasonable way for the average guy to verify
the
statements.

Firstly, my experience is just the opposite, and there is 10.6 Mb of data
and reports on my hard disk right now, most of it from the current
administration, which I accumulated for an article I finished on Friday (it
will be published in Machining in a couple of weeks). The new generation of
conservatives has raised the art of Twainsian statistics (from Mark Twain's
"lies, damned lies, and statistics") to heights hitherto unknown. The Cato
Institute, for example, is the Mad Magazine of the statistics business. The
Department of Commerce is giving them a run for their money these days. I
think you just aren't looking -- or you just aren't analyzing them
critically.

Secondly, there is a very reasonable way for average guys like you and me to
analyze these statements. All it takes is time and effort. Most of the
original statistics used by pundits, propagandists, journalists and
politicians come from the US government, and more than half of those are on
the web. Start with the Bureau of the Census (DoC), then Bureau of Labor
Statistics, and so on. The other half of the government data is available
through Stat USA, which you can subscribe to for a monthly fee that's not
too bad. One month's worth of downloads should keep anyone happily digging
through tables of numbers for a lifetime.


Mike Eberlein (I am encouraging my daughter to consider Pharmacy as a
major in
college (she is a freshmen). Figure they can out source the pill
manufacturing
to China (or Mars), but they will still need the pill rollers).

sigh It's today's equivalent of becoming an accountant. I suspect
enrollment in accounting will drop off sharply now, with so much of it going
to India.

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

"mikee" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

Well, let your curiosity be piqued no mo the data in this particular
article is attributed to the Economic Policy Institute. You can look
them up
on the Web.

I looked them up. Interesting site. I confess to being a "true believer"
in
conservative Republican principles, so the Economic Policy Institute
material
seemed a little left leaning to me, but I did read some of it.

It is somewhat lefty by US standards, but it's a better source than most.
Again, if you want to go to the original data, it's not hard to do, just
time consuming. I do it all the time myself -- if I publish a figure in
print, I either double-check it against the original source, or, if I have
to use just one source, I make damned sure I attribute it. That's what The
Economist does, too.

I'll make half-hearted attempts to double-check things I quote in a
newsgroup, but a conversation isn't the same thing as a published quote.


Twain is often misquoted. The actual quote is "lies, damn lies,
statistics,
economics."

I assume this is a joke, right? The actual quote, from Twain's posthumus
autobiography, is "The remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with
justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and
statistics'."

But there is no record that Disraeli said it, either.

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

Well, let your curiosity be piqued no mo the data in this particular
article is attributed to the Economic Policy Institute. You can look them up
on the Web.

I looked them up. Interesting site. I confess to being a "true believer" in
conservative Republican principles, so the Economic Policy Institute material
seemed a little left leaning to me, but I did read some of it.

Twain is often misquoted. The actual quote is "lies, damn lies, statistics,
economics."

Even Albert Einstein was interested in economics. See:
http://www.ruleof72.net/rule-of-72-einstein.asp

Regards,

Mike Eberlein

"mikee" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

Well, let your curiosity be piqued no mo the data in this particular
article is attributed to the Economic Policy Institute. You can look
them up
on the Web.

I looked them up. Interesting site. I confess to being a "true believer"
in
conservative Republican principles, so the Economic Policy Institute
material
seemed a little left leaning to me, but I did read some of it.

BTW, I believe the source of data for that claim about percentages of wealth
comes not from the Census but from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of
Consumer Finances (SCF).

Not that I'm suggesting you track it down, but the side where it's described
is:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/o.../scfindex.html

I doubt if the fine detail is available on the Web, but the data likely
comes from that report.

Ed Huntress

That one goes into the dear wife's stack - she will love it!

OBTW - Maybe Ed can help us on the TAD topic I added tonight.

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

"Eastburn" wrote in message
...
That one goes into the dear wife's stack - she will love it!

OBTW - Maybe Ed can help us on the TAD topic I added tonight.

I must have missed it, Martin. What thread is it in?

Ed Huntress