On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:15:57 -0700, Ed Patterson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:42:03 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:
Indeed, there was a time when jingoism overrode good sense. But
the purpose of a corporation is to earn value for its shareholders.
Eventually it has to do that, or it will cease to exist, its shareholders
will have lost their investments, its workers will be unemployed, and
who benefits from that?

The purpose of a government is to protect its citizens. Eventually it
has to do that, or it will cease to exist, its citizens will have lost
their investments, the leaders will be terminated and who benefits
from that?

The purpose of government is to protect its citizens, but at least in
non-socialist nations that doesn't include "protecting" them from
choosing with whom they do business. In the US, we have the
right to *pursue* happiness, we don't have a right to have it handed
to us by government.

Now if you take the position that you have a right to a captive market,
and government must crush all competitors for you to ensure that
protectionist position, then you'd have a case for government stepping
in and using coercive force on your behalf against foreign companies.
I tend to disagree with that position.

Gary

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:44:23 +0800, Old Nick wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:42:03 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote something
......and in reply I say!:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:06:29 +0800, Old Nick wrote:
Union workers are "pricing themselves out of the market" at least in
part because they need the wages to buy the products they make

But at least in part those products are priced so high because of the
excessive wage demands of the union workers. It is a vicious circle.


That is my point, actually. It's called inflation, caused by profit. I
mean profit as in the workers want to be paid more than they have to
actually work for, and the companies want to get more for the product
than they had to pay for it. I am fighting Carl's contention that
removing one half of the equation will solve the problem. It will not
work for many reasons.

No, that's not called inflation. Inflation is caused by the money supply
increasing faster than the output of goods and services. Higher wage
demands per se don't increase the money supply. They just reallocate
it.

Indeed, there was a time when jingoism overrode good sense. But
the purpose of a corporation is to earn value for its shareholders.
Eventually it has to do that, or it will cease to exist, its shareholders
will have lost their investments, its workers will be unemployed, and
who benefits from that?

hmmmmmmmm....here we really go head to head.

Firstly, I do not describe what I was talking about as jingoism
overriding good sense, although there is an element of this. Companies
believed in their product, saw the long haul, and realised that their
best bet at prosperity and good feeling (which they valued then) was
by making the place (town, state, country) in which they were based,
and in which the huge majority of their "power men" lived, prosper
along with them. The majority of their "power men" were directly tied
up in the processes that the company carried out. They believed in the
product to at least some extent. While not in any way egalitarian, it
also maintained a moderately contented and relatively stable situation
in many places around the world. It was not equality, but resentment
was kept controllable, and many people were more than content to
largely ignore the inequality, on both sides. Others, not so well off,
were envious and more or less resentful, but they saw little enough of
it that it was not important to either side to really worry about it.

What you're describing was once called "robber baron" capitalism.
It is essentially a feudal view of business.

Secondly, unless that corporation is that evil of evils, a straight
out trader in companies and shares, the purpose of a corporation is
_not_ to earn value for its shareholders. The purpose of a corporation
is to carry out its job well. To do its job, it needs to sustain
profit _only_ enough to keep trading _in its product_ healthily. It
could in effect be non profit, still pay lots of people good money,
some a lot more than others, and be a sound, successful company. It
could also profit enough pay shareholders a reasonable rate of return
for their help, in the form of dividends. This rate of return can be
agreed upon before shares are bought, and reviewed as needed or
possible. It should never override the core business of the company.

You're just an old communist at heart aren't you? :-)

I agree with the share system. It has allowed many companies to things
they could not have done otherwise. But I disagree with _trading_ in
shares because:
- a share trade, between parties totally disconnected from the
shares' "owners" (the company) does absolutely nothing for the core
business, or productivity of the company
- in fact, come to think of it, it achieves nothing!

Actually, it achieves liquidity, and an efficient allocation of capital.

Gary

On 12 Oct 2003 11:41:59 -0700, (Spehro Pefhany) wrote:
Current projections for 2040 are that China will have the world's largest
economy (it's only recently surpassed that of Canada, one of the smallest
G7 members, but still the US largest trading partner). Followed by the
US economy and (closely) by India. Of course projecting that far out in
advance is sure to be way off, but it indicates the trends.

Economic prosperity is based on 3 legs, labor, capital, and raw materials.
China and India have a large advantage in terms of labor. They're the
two most populous nations on Earth. Up until recently, they haven't had
access to large amounts of capital. But that's changing as the multi-
nationals (companies and banks) compete to invest in those countries.
Raw materials have become a global commodity, so having abundant
local supplies (which was a huge advantage of the US in an earlier era)
is no longer a critical factor.

Americans will still be richer than Chinese, but by maybe 2:1 rather
than 30:1 or more. Obviously, if that more economically egalitarian
world, if it comes to pass, will be quite different from today's. The same
projections showed Russia to be relatively insignificant economically.

Russia is a paradox. They have vast natural resources. They have a
well educated work force. But they lack capital, and the work ethic
to utilize it efficiently. Their government still wants to obstruct rather
than promote investment. That could change, but until it does,
Russia won't be a major world player.

And, for the paranoid, militarily, an ascendant China will not acquiesce
to having another nation able to rain death down upon them from space
without possibility of retribution. They are definitely looking 50 years+
into the future. As the march towards a US missile shield and the
militarization of space seem inevitable, we can expect that they will
do at least the minimum required to maintain a credible deterrent.
For the moment, not much is required of them, some modifications to
the reentry vehicles of ICBMs, but longer term, denial of the use of
space for potential foes, and space-based weapons are probably a
necessary security issue for them. Of course the current lurch
towards unilateralism, PNAC and the rest serves to crystalize
the matter.

Absolutely.

They have announced plans to send a man to the moon, and eventually to
Mars. Although the technology they are using now is old-ish (Apollo era/
Soyuz for the spacecraft), this is non-trivial.

Note that the US is also contemplating returning to a capsule type design.
Wings on spaceships never made a lot of sense.

I wonder what the effect would be on the West of seeing a Chinese
astronaut plant that red flag with yellow stars on the surface of our
one moon, let alone Mars.

Probably most of the world will yawn. Support for space exploration has
declined sharply since the Apollo Moon landings. Most people don't see
the benefits of space exploration and exploitation. If the Chinese start
turning a *profit* on it, though, people will begin to sit up and take
notice.

If the initial flight is successful I do plan to toast their accomplishment,
but we have to think about this tit-for-tat stuff in the military area.
Eventually it will all come home to roost, and announcing plans for
absolute military dominance over a potential foe as a long-term
objective shows some real lack of understanding of human nature.

The military advantages of being able to operate from the top of the
gravity well are enormous. It is an old military maxim that one should
take and hold the high ground. But that's thinking in terms of conventional
warfare. In the 21st century, I suspect that most warfare will be carried
out by unconventional means (guerilla war, economic war, information
war, etc). So conventional military thinking is of less value than in the
past.

Gary

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:16:58 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Old Nick" wrote in message
.. .



Fairness is another issue, Nick. We aren't arguing about fairness. What Gary
and Carl are saying is that there is an *economic* reason for their claims.

What did I 'claim', Ed?

-Carl

"Dan" wrote in message ...

Interesting article on Bloomberg today, although I disagree with the
"spin", (I believe it's the old inefficient state-owned enterprises
that are shedding jobs, and for very good reason) the overall
statistics are interesting:-

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...lumnist _baum

if that doesn't work, just go to it from http://www.bloomberg.com

So Who's Stealing China's Manufacturing Jobs?: Caroline Baum
Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- You know all those U.S. manufacturing jobs that
have been high-tailing it to China? China sure is doing a lousy job of
holding on to them.

China lost 16 million manufacturing jobs, a decline of 15 percent,
between 1995 and 2002, according to a study of manufacturing jobs in
the 20 largest economies by Joe Carson, director of economic research
at Alliance Capital Management. In that same time, U.S. factory
employment shrank by 2 million, or 11 percent.
snip

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:44:23 +0800, Old Nick
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

Started to feel a bit like Jeffery Goines (sp)of Twelve Monkeys for a
while there...back on the meds now. It's all OK.

But I may back away anyway.

("Leaving Lepidoptera (please don't touch the displays little boy, oh
cute), we come to Arachnida, the spiders, our finest collection...")
thanks and any needed apologies to Alice Cooper.)
hrrrmph! Sorry.

It is automation and human nature that are causing the current unrest.
But AFAICS, people look at automation as the robot that displaces the
snip snap
allows; no, _forces_ information to get to vast numbers of people who
never had it before. Elitist though it may be, ignorance can be bliss
and certainly makes things easier.

rant off

************************************************** ****************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
Please remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:05:42 GMT, Gunner wrote:
Ok, and how much of the "goods and services" are related to military
protection of other nations, with money spent in those nations, plus
that covered by the umbrella effect? A sizable fraction of our
military expenditures are dollars spent in other nations on
infrastructure alone. Do you have any figures for that?

Ok, here's the breakdown for fiscal year 2001.
all figures are in billions of dollars.

Pay $72.1
Operating and Maintenance Costs $110.2
Weapon Purchases $52.7
Weapon Research $38.0
Construction $8.9
Other $3.1
Department of Defense Subtotal $284.9

Department of Energy (Military) $13.4
Other $0.8

National Defense total $299.1

MILITARY-RELATED
Fiscal Year 2001

Foreign Military Aid $7.1
International Peacekeeping $1.1
Space (Military) $2.6
Military Retirement Pay $34.2
Veterans’ Benefits $45.4
Interest Attributable to Past Military Spending $94.8

Military and Military-Related Grand Total $484.3

Now you can see that the bulk of military spending is for pay
and retirement benefits, O&M costs, and a big chunk due to
interest on money borrowed in previous years to pay for it all.

Foreign costs would fall in the Foreign Military Aid category
(mostly to Israel), International Peacekeeping, and a bit of
the construction and O&M money for foreign bases.

Now it is true that other nations benefit from being under
our military umbrella. Japan immediately leaps to mind.
But don't forget that we're there primarily for our benefit,
not theirs. It isn't really to our security advantage to have
allies (who may be enemies once again some day) building
up large military forces. Better that only we have the big
stick.

How about benefits other nations derive from our R&D expenditures,
plus spin offs in medicine, space etc etc?

Well much of the R&D results are patented, so other nations have
to *pay* to make use of them. Spinoffs are not inconsequential,
but they're usually no bargain either. Almost always, the money
would have been better spent directly pursuing those things than
depending on them to incidently fall out from other expensive
programs of dubious value.

Knowledge is important, and our universities are the main source
for training technologists from most of the world. Many decide to
stay in the US, however, so this isn't as large a benefit to their
home countries as it may at first seem.

Not arguing, just wondering if the GDP really is an accurate indicator
of how that alleged 30% of world resources is used solely for the good
of Americans.

Well, GDP isn't really a good indicator of consumption of the world's
resources. Those resources are *raw materials* for the most part,
and there is very little value added in raw materials. The GDP mostly
reflects value added operations. We really would have to look at
raw tonnage figures to see how much of the Earth's resources we're
using on a per capita basis, ie how much iron, coal, oil, biomass,
water, etc, etc, etc. Without posting detailed figures, I'll only say
that our per capita consumption of those resources is extremely
larger than for most other nations of the world.

Gary

On 14 Oct 2003 15:41:25 -0700, (Spehro Pefhany) wrote:
So Who's Stealing China's Manufacturing Jobs?: Caroline Baum
Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- You know all those U.S. manufacturing jobs that
have been high-tailing it to China? China sure is doing a lousy job of
holding on to them.

China lost 16 million manufacturing jobs, a decline of 15 percent,
between 1995 and 2002, according to a study of manufacturing jobs in
the 20 largest economies by Joe Carson, director of economic research
at Alliance Capital Management. In that same time, U.S. factory
employment shrank by 2 million, or 11 percent.
snip

Where did they go? They were eliminated due to increased productivity.

Here's the important meat of the article with respect to what's happening
in the US job market.

``Real manufacturing output has risen 77 percent even though the
number of manufacturing workers has fallen 22 percent since the
1979 peak,'' Wieting says. [Steve Wieting, Citigroup economist]

Similarly, real farm output rose 96 percent since 1979 with
31 percent fewer agricultural workers.

A rising supply of food and consumer goods caused prices to
rise more slowly than per-capita income, giving consumers more
income to spend on other things -- on services that didn't
previously exist.

[I'd add that marketers like Walmart have also helped to
cause prices to rise slower than per capita income, thus
promoting the creation of new types of jobs.]

``While manufacturing and farm employment has fallen by
22 percent and 33 percent, respectively, since 1979, total
U.S. employment still managed to grow 41 percent,'' Wieting
says.

Now this latter statistic probably won't ease the fears of Jim,
who thinks all those new jobs are at Walmart or Mcdonalds.
But US GDP-PPP growth over the same period should set
those fears to rest.

In other words, median incomes were rising at the same time
that all those old economy jobs were lost and new jobs created.
So the "displacement" appears to have been successful, at
least for the work force as a whole. Individual workers may
not have fared so well, depending on their abilities to transition
to another sort of work.

A statement made by an educator not too long ago strikes
me at this point. He said that workers entering the job market
today can expect to change careers five times before they
retire. Old jobs are going away, new jobs are being created,
and a worker has to have the flexibility to move with the
changes. Those who can't may find themselves chronically
unemployed.

Gary

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:11:21 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:05:42 GMT, Gunner wrote:
Ok, and how much of the "goods and services" are related to military
protection of other nations, with money spent in those nations, plus
that covered by the umbrella effect? A sizable fraction of our
military expenditures are dollars spent in other nations on
infrastructure alone. Do you have any figures for that?

Ok, here's the breakdown for fiscal year 2001.
all figures are in billions of dollars.

Pay $72.1
Operating and Maintenance Costs $110.2
Weapon Purchases $52.7
Weapon Research $38.0
Construction $8.9
Other $3.1
Department of Defense Subtotal $284.9

Department of Energy (Military) $13.4
Other $0.8

National Defense total $299.1

MILITARY-RELATED
Fiscal Year 2001

Foreign Military Aid $7.1
International Peacekeeping $1.1
Space (Military) $2.6
Military Retirement Pay $34.2
Veterans’ Benefits $45.4
Interest Attributable to Past Military Spending $94.8

Military and Military-Related Grand Total $484.3

Now you can see that the bulk of military spending is for pay
and retirement benefits, O&M costs, and a big chunk due to
interest on money borrowed in previous years to pay for it all.

Foreign costs would fall in the Foreign Military Aid category
(mostly to Israel), International Peacekeeping, and a bit of
the construction and O&M money for foreign bases.

Now it is true that other nations benefit from being under
our military umbrella. Japan immediately leaps to mind.
But don't forget that we're there primarily for our benefit,
not theirs. It isn't really to our security advantage to have
allies (who may be enemies once again some day) building
up large military forces. Better that only we have the big
stick.

How about benefits other nations derive from our R&D expenditures,
plus spin offs in medicine, space etc etc?

Well much of the R&D results are patented, so other nations have
to *pay* to make use of them. Spinoffs are not inconsequential,
but they're usually no bargain either. Almost always, the money
would have been better spent directly pursuing those things than
depending on them to incidently fall out from other expensive
programs of dubious value.

Knowledge is important, and our universities are the main source
for training technologists from most of the world. Many decide to
stay in the US, however, so this isn't as large a benefit to their
home countries as it may at first seem.

Not arguing, just wondering if the GDP really is an accurate indicator
of how that alleged 30% of world resources is used solely for the good
of Americans.

Well, GDP isn't really a good indicator of consumption of the world's
resources. Those resources are *raw materials* for the most part,
and there is very little value added in raw materials. The GDP mostly
reflects value added operations. We really would have to look at
raw tonnage figures to see how much of the Earth's resources we're
using on a per capita basis, ie how much iron, coal, oil, biomass,
water, etc, etc, etc. Without posting detailed figures, I'll only say
that our per capita consumption of those resources is extremely
larger than for most other nations of the world.

Gary

Thanks for the figures. Im not sure if they are telling the tale yet,
but I think it would be hard to figure out.

I keep hearing that 30% figure, and everytime someone uses it, its to
lead one to believe that its all going into swimming pools, and new
shoes for your kids etc etc.

I rather suspect that a fair chunk of that 30% is being returned to
the rest of the planet in the form of aid, goods and services and
other associated bennies.

At one time, the US was the worlds foremost user of the worlds
aluminum, but I recall seeing that a very large chunk of it was
returned to the rest of the planet as finished goods and raw metals.
Given that the US is no longer the biggest manufacturing state, it
would seem that might purchase a big chunk of finished goods, but the
money is being given to the actual resource users, whom make the
goods.

Im having a hard time quantifying what Im trying to say here, dammit.

Gunner

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message . net...
"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
...
Carl Byrns writes:

If the labor rate in China really is 80 cents an hour, then it's game
over, the Chinese are the winners, and the rest of us better get
comfortable with being farmers because we will be the new peasants.

By that logic, if they gave us all their labor for free, we would be even
worse off.

Do you curse the sun for flooding us with cheap, imported light?

It's true that cheap imports can be a benefit, but that assumes our economy
can grow fast enough to replace a lot of well-paying jobs lost to imports.
When the trade deficit gets as large as it is today ($418 billion deficit,
goods and services total; goods alone are around $460 billion deficit), it
probably can't. The job-growth rate and average new-job wages would have to
reach heights we've never seen, and which there is no indication we ever
will.

So Ed, I keep hearing all the blame go to places like China. Our Trade
Deficit with them is growing at a fast clip. But the reality is that
China itself does not have any real total trade surplus to speak of.
They import as much as they export. This tells me that they are buying
goods, just not from the USA. Are we not producing the goods that
China wants or needs competitively? Obviously so. So this places the
onus on ourselves. How do we overcome that?

I think these are the real questions we need to ask ourselves. Placing
blame on China's currency valuation is a farce. I know you are still
looking for that "other" system to base trade on, but in the meantime,
we have to look inward to solve our problems. Not place blame.

What does China do with the foreign reserves they get? They buy US
Treasuries, our debt. They are currently the second largest buyer of
our debt in the world today. without their purchases, interest rates
would rise like crazy and the dollars value would sink. They didnt
create the debt, we did. GWB's finger pointing to Japan and China for
manipulating currency is a joke. Historically we have done the same
numerous times. China merely ties their currency, while Japan actually
moves mountains to balance theirs (8-10 billion per month of
dollar/treasury buying).

ed, what do you think we should be focusing on? what moves do you
think we should make in the USA?

BG

Ed Huntress

Gary Coffman wrote in message . ..
On 14 Oct 2003 01:41:23 GMT, (SMuel10363) wrote:
Their standard of living *is* lower than ours because their government's
socialist policies (socialized medicine, nationalized broadcasting,
nationalized

BULL**** Ray Mueller

Canadian per capita GDP-PPP is $25,179 (US).
United States per capita GDP-PPP is $33,872 (US)

GDP-PPP is the income figure corrected for a market basket
of local commodities. In other words, it is a measure of the
average purchasing power of that money in that locality. As
such, it gauges how well you can live on the median wage
in a given area.

The median value would be more indicative than the average (per
capita) value, which is distorted by a relatively small number of
extremely wealthy people in the US. Or even something that cuts at
other than 50%, but incorporates a substantial part of the population.
It would be interesting to see what the income is in the middle
60%~80% (throw out the bottom and top 10 or 20% of people).

After all, if there are 1,000,000 people in a city and 100 of them
each make a billion dollars per year and the rest get only $10K, the
per capita is a healthy $110,000 but only 0.01% of the people make
more than $10K.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Gary Coffman wrote in message . ..

On 12 Oct 2003 11:41:59 -0700, (Spehro Pefhany) wrote:
I wonder what the effect would be on the West of seeing a Chinese
astronaut plant that red flag with yellow stars on the surface of our
one moon, let alone Mars.

Probably most of the world will yawn.

It's 11:24 AM here in HK, and the Shenzhou V lift-off was covered
almost-live on Chinese state TV a couple of hours ago (presumably they
waited to be sure it didn't explode before they ran the tape). The HK
take on the US reaction is that it would be split between the yawn,
"been there, done that 40 years ago" reaction and the fear about
future military exploitation. IOW, not very positive. ;-) They ran
tape of the launch of the first satellite in 1970 with the control
room erupting into a "spontaneous" display of affection for the Great
Helmsman himself with their little re(a)d books. How times have
changed. They mentioned that Chinese success in launching commercial
satellites had been hindered by US opposition using export control
laws. The TV here has taken a small but very definite turn toward
reporting things from the Beijing perspective. I suspect national
pride issues will be much more in evidence north of the border (it
isn't that big a deal here)- I have to pop over for a day or two
before coming back and will see what people are saying.

Support for space exploration has
declined sharply since the Apollo Moon landings. Most people don't see
the benefits of space exploration and exploitation. If the Chinese start
turning a *profit* on it, though, people will begin to sit up and take
notice.

I suppose people are all in favor of it if they don't have to pay for
it, but the public interest was beginning to flag during the Apollo
missions- the TV networks didn't want to pre-empt all their
programming and so on, until Apollo 13 jolted us back into realization
that what they were doing was far from routine and riskless.

At least China got their shot in before private American companies
managed to do it. ;-) It would have been really embarassing if a
nation of 1.3bn couldn't do that.

If the initial flight is successful I do plan to toast their accomplishment,
but we have to think about this tit-for-tat stuff in the military area.
Eventually it will all come home to roost, and announcing plans for
absolute military dominance over a potential foe as a long-term
objective shows some real lack of understanding of human nature.

The military advantages of being able to operate from the top of the
gravity well are enormous. It is an old military maxim that one should
take and hold the high ground. But that's thinking in terms of conventional
warfare. In the 21st century, I suspect that most warfare will be carried
out by unconventional means (guerilla war, economic war, information
war, etc). So conventional military thinking is of less value than in the
past.

The US invasion of Iraq was heavily dependent on satellite technology,
something they are keenly aware of.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

On 14 Oct 2003 18:55:54 -0700, (bg) wrote:
What does China do with the foreign reserves they get? They buy US
Treasuries, our debt. They are currently the second largest buyer of
our debt in the world today. without their purchases, interest rates
would rise like crazy and the dollars value would sink. They didnt
create the debt, we did. GWB's finger pointing to Japan and China for
manipulating currency is a joke. Historically we have done the same
numerous times. China merely ties their currency, while Japan actually
moves mountains to balance theirs (8-10 billion per month of
dollar/treasury buying).

Our current national debt is $6,8 trillion dollars, 68% of our GDP.
Your share is $23,359.45. When can we expect a check?

Gary

Gary Coffman wrote:

snipped

I disagree. In general, each worker needs a car, but that's not necessarily
so for each family member. And any family member not working outside the
home isn't contributing to the purchase of those cars. In other words,
their "per capita income" is all coming from the paychecks of the wage
earners of the family.

Gary

Hi Gary,

Got to point something out regarding "any family member not working
outside the home ..." . More and more people work from their homes.
I've been working from a home office since '97, and support a 5 person
family. We run a multi million dollar contract just fine with employees
who have no floor space in any of our corporate offices. I do still
need a vehicle though, there are meetings at customer sites, and
occasionally I swing by one of our data centers to check things out.

Cheers,
Stan

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:14:55 -0400, Gary Coffman wrote:


The purpose of government is to protect its citizens, but at least in
non-socialist nations that doesn't include "protecting" them from
choosing with whom they do business. In the US, we have the
right to *pursue* happiness, we don't have a right to have it handed
to us by government.
The aim of every government is to perpetuate itself. Anything else is an
extra.
--
Neil
My address is Spamless.

Gary Coffman wrote in message . ..
On 14 Oct 2003 18:55:54 -0700, (bg) wrote:
What does China do with the foreign reserves they get? They buy US
Treasuries, our debt. They are currently the second largest buyer of
our debt in the world today. without their purchases, interest rates
would rise like crazy and the dollars value would sink. They didnt
create the debt, we did. GWB's finger pointing to Japan and China for
manipulating currency is a joke. Historically we have done the same
numerous times. China merely ties their currency, while Japan actually
moves mountains to balance theirs (8-10 billion per month of
dollar/treasury buying).

Our current national debt is $6,8 trillion dollars, 68% of our GDP.
Your share is $23,359.45. When can we expect a check?

I send my check in every year. The morons we elect dont know what to
do with it. It goes to Turkey for loans, foreign aid, military bases
that havent had purpose for 50 years, etc. Never a cut in expenses.
So, the debt grows.



Gary

I like your point, BG

Yes, China can and will kick our arse via low wages, currency
manipulations, etc. but we also need to look at the items HERE that are
killing business HERE. Control the things we can now and then move onto
the things that require "diplomacy" to repair.

Currently, I am being driven nuts by the state's tax systems (because of
sales in multiple states...and having to go inspet stuff within that
state). California is the worst because it actively pursues you for
having sold something there. Other states will probably follow their
lead because of high deficits.

For example, if I send a crew to CA for a day or two of repair on a
machine I built, I am supposed to pay California workman's comp on them,
California Income tax for them, I have to file all the California
paperwork to do this, and I have California "apportion" my sales to
collect california income tax on my business proceeds. All for a day
or two of work that may be my only job there this year. Texas is
similar with their franchise tax which is sticking it to some very large
businesses like Conagra.

It's like dealing with 50 different countries in many ways. Many of
the other people in this business have moved production to Mexico,
eliminated ALL travel and connections that give a nexus in other states,
and almost act like an internet sales company. No service...no equiment
inspection to see what's really going on, etc. Eliminate the tax
collectio hassles by eliminating part of your business.

Surely this is one area that hinders our ability to do cost effective
business. Yes, importers have the same problems but it is far easier to
float the costs when you are simply marking up someone elses goods.
Also importers tend to be more "retail" oriented which is a business
structure that lends itself to being like "50 business' in 50 countries".

Anyway, this is just one area where we screw ourselves in terms of
business realtive to imports. Name some others please.

Koz
bg wrote:

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


"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..


Carl Byrns writes:



If the labor rate in China really is 80 cents an hour, then it's game
over, the Chinese are the winners, and the rest of us better get
comfortable with being farmers because we will be the new peasants.


By that logic, if they gave us all their labor for free, we would be even
worse off.

Do you curse the sun for flooding us with cheap, imported light?


It's true that cheap imports can be a benefit, but that assumes our economy
can grow fast enough to replace a lot of well-paying jobs lost to imports.
When the trade deficit gets as large as it is today ($418 billion deficit,
goods and services total; goods alone are around $460 billion deficit), it
probably can't. The job-growth rate and average new-job wages would have to
reach heights we've never seen, and which there is no indication we ever
will.



So Ed, I keep hearing all the blame go to places like China. Our Trade
Deficit with them is growing at a fast clip. But the reality is that
China itself does not have any real total trade surplus to speak of.
They import as much as they export. This tells me that they are buying
goods, just not from the USA. Are we not producing the goods that
China wants or needs competitively? Obviously so. So this places the
onus on ourselves. How do we overcome that?

I think these are the real questions we need to ask ourselves. Placing
blame on China's currency valuation is a farce. I know you are still
looking for that "other" system to base trade on, but in the meantime,
we have to look inward to solve our problems. Not place blame.

What does China do with the foreign reserves they get? They buy US
Treasuries, our debt. They are currently the second largest buyer of
our debt in the world today. without their purchases, interest rates
would rise like crazy and the dollars value would sink. They didnt
create the debt, we did. GWB's finger pointing to Japan and China for
manipulating currency is a joke. Historically we have done the same
numerous times. China merely ties their currency, while Japan actually
moves mountains to balance theirs (8-10 billion per month of
dollar/treasury buying).

ed, what do you think we should be focusing on? what moves do you
think we should make in the USA?

BG


Ed Huntress

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:16:58 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

OK. Please excuse the grins and facetiousness. Please also forgive my
playing with words. I enjoy it. I am taking this subject seriously. It
affects all of us for good and bad, including the Chinese. But I often
hide behind a smartarse exterior.

I hope those Chinese US$0.80 / hour workers are proud of the space
shot. While I realise that we have to account for living costs when
talking income, I bet that space shot did not cost only 1/50th of a
shuttle launch..........hmmm....... I withdraw that bet. It _might_
have done! Man! Those Chinese astronauts are _brave_.

Wup! Hang on! A quote from Gary C....if I may, Gary.

Talking of China's budget........

"Their entire space program runs on a budget of under
$1.5 billion per year. The US is spending $28 billion this year, "

So apparently China is spending 1/20th of the US space budget, while
the workers get 1/50th of the pay. I was safe with that bet after all.

Damn!

Facts! You want facts? Sitting on the fence gives you splinters up the
bum! I have counted mine. There are too many. I challenge anyone to
prove me wrong! G Funny you know? Maybe that's why sitting on the
fence is always described as covering your arse! G.

To the matters at hand..........

Actually, I had put "fuzzball philosophy" in front of that fairness
paragraph because I agree it is exactly that. Fairness is among the
least _reasons_ for anything happening (note I do not say the least
reason for doing anything, liberalist softy that I am G)

I feel that my second paragraph (omitted) has more weight. When the
"unfairees" see the unbfairness, they react.

Fairness is another issue, Nick. We aren't arguing about fairness. What Gary
and Carl are saying is that there is an *economic* reason for their claims.
I don't know of any, and no one has presented one here except in fuzzy,
qualitative terms.

A lot of these fuzzy ideas break down when you look at actual numbers and
actual patterns of economic events. This subject can't be discussed in real
terms without a lot of solid numbers to prove or disprove one idea or the
other. Gathering them is very hard work. Even finding them can be hard work.
That's the hard work on which I've spent so much of my time lately, and it
makes me skeptical about these off-the-cuff and anecdotal "theories." They
often collapse when you look at the numbers.

hmmm....I disagree that numbers, or economic as distinct from social
events, provide all the answers. Regarding the fuzziness of the posts
that prompted these between "you and I" G, Gary was writing about
the imbalance of the use of resources, and the impossibility of
maintaining that imbalance in a stable way, AFAICS. Carl agreed. I am
not sure whether they _were_ arguing economically, together or
individually, but if they were, I agree that they have not presented
facts.

On the other hand, human behaviour should be taken into serious
account here. There have been just a _couple_ of events in history,
causing enormous change, because of that exact situation.

...........the imbalance, that is. Carl's agreement, and even Gary's
statements, may have caused some bobbles throughout time G.

Gary may have been referring to that human behaviour angle.

Gary...Gary....chance to support me......errr hedge your bets.....
here! G
************************************************** ****************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
Please remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 06:48:15 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:


..........the imbalance, that is. Carl's agreement, and even Gary's
statements, may have caused some bobbles throughout time G.

Well... I can't speak for Gary, but I certainly hope I haven't done
anything to cause eddies in the wash of space-time g.

We haven't heard from Ed Huntress for a couple of days now...

-Carl

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 02:49:53 GMT, Carl Byrns
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

meaning you want to use up some of Eddie's space time? G

We haven't heard from Ed Huntress for a couple of days now...

-Carl

************************************************** ****************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
Please remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 06:48:15 +0800, Old Nick wrote:
Gary may have been referring to that human behaviour angle.

Gary...Gary....chance to support me......errr hedge your bets.....
here! G

Indeed, I stated explicitly that economics is more than just numbers,
it is also psychology. Classic economic theory is about wants and
needs, and the various methodologies for fullfilling those wants and
needs (or not). It isn't just statistical analysis.

Gary

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:35:07 GMT, Gunner wrote:
Thanks for the figures. Im not sure if they are telling the tale yet,
but I think it would be hard to figure out.

I keep hearing that 30% figure, and everytime someone uses it, its to
lead one to believe that its all going into swimming pools, and new
shoes for your kids etc etc.

A very large proportion of it goes into automobiles and things associated
with automobiles like roads, service garages, oil and gas, etc.

I rather suspect that a fair chunk of that 30% is being returned to
the rest of the planet in the form of aid, goods and services and
other associated bennies.

You'd have a hard time showing that. As I noted, only 7% of US
output is exported commercially, and foreign aid is a pittance as
a percentage of US output.

At one time, the US was the worlds foremost user of the worlds
aluminum, but I recall seeing that a very large chunk of it was
returned to the rest of the planet as finished goods and raw metals.
Given that the US is no longer the biggest manufacturing state, it
would seem that might purchase a big chunk of finished goods, but the
money is being given to the actual resource users, whom make the
goods.

Which makes people in the US the ultimate consumers of the resource.
It doesn't matter who builds it, it is the end user who winds up consuming
it.

Im having a hard time quantifying what Im trying to say here, dammit.

That's probably because it is difficult to find any evidence to support what
you're saying. In fact, available evidence says the contrary.

Gary

Hi,
-
As to your OSHA quip, I know of a Northvale, NJ manufacture of rocker
arms to the big three auto makers, using mostly green card and some
illegal aliens and being NON-UNION, would also qualify for that
statement among other mfg. facilities in NJ & NY I've seen. And just
yell out, "IMMIGRATION!" And watch that place clearout in seconds.
{;^)
-
I even got 'cha names.
-
Ain't so great here in the USA in certain places! But compared to El
Salvador in the 1980's the workers coming here, even in bad OSHA
conditions, got it so much better off.
-
-+-
Kurt
{:{
=========



Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

Group: rec.crafts.metalworking Date: Sat, Oct 11, 2003, 10:45am (EDT-3)
From: (Dan)
Very modern, very well equipped. Very little "real" detail, but an
interesting read nonetheless.
One of the computer geek pages went to China to tour a case
manufacturer: http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20031006/index.html
==========
Of note: the lack of any safety equipment... OSHA would have an heart
attack!
==========
(Slashdot readers have posted many comments here as well:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...d&tid=126&tid=
137 )
-D

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 05:14:11 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


If it makes you happy, call it protectionism. Most people would say it's
protectionism only if it limits imports in some way. Offsets don't limit
imports. They just require an equal amount of imports at the other end.
Sounds good - so when is the US going to take more New Zealand
imports? When are they going to stop tarrifs and limits on sheep meat
from Australia and new Zealand - as ordered by the WTO 3 times? For
the average US citizen, sheep are wooly animals that damn few
americans know about, or grow, but they have some powerful friends in
Congress. Offsets sound good to me - of course it goes both ways...
The US is one of the most protected markets in the world
Geoff

"geoff merryweather" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 05:14:11 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


If it makes you happy, call it protectionism. Most people would say it's
protectionism only if it limits imports in some way. Offsets don't limit
imports. They just require an equal amount of imports at the other end.
Sounds good - so when is the US going to take more New Zealand
imports?

I'm glad it sounds good to you, Geoff, because New Zealand currently is
US$468 million in the hole. g In other words, in 2002 you ran a positive
trade balance with the US of $468 million. You have a lot of buying to do
before you catch up.

When are they going to stop tarrifs and limits on sheep meat
from Australia and new Zealand - as ordered by the WTO 3 times? For
the average US citizen, sheep are wooly animals that damn few
americans know about, or grow, but they have some powerful friends in
Congress. Offsets sound good to me - of course it goes both ways...

When you buy $468 million's worth of US goods or services, we'll be in
balance. Then we can talk about your sheep.

The US is one of the most protected markets in the world
Geoff

Yeah. That's why we run a $460 BILLION trade deficit...

Get real, Geoff. NZ is an old-time mercantilist country that wants it all
their way. You run a US$468 million positive trade balance with the US and
then you complain about US protectionism.

What kind of sheep baloney are they feeding you down there? g

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

"bg" wrote in message
om...

It's true that cheap imports can be a benefit, but that assumes our
economy
can grow fast enough to replace a lot of well-paying jobs lost to
imports.
When the trade deficit gets as large as it is today ($418 billion
deficit,
goods and services total; goods alone are around $460 billion deficit),
it
probably can't. The job-growth rate and average new-job wages would have
to
reach heights we've never seen, and which there is no indication we ever
will.

So Ed, I keep hearing all the blame go to places like China. Our Trade
Deficit with them is growing at a fast clip. But the reality is that
China itself does not have any real total trade surplus to speak of.
They import as much as they export. This tells me that they are buying
goods, just not from the USA. Are we not producing the goods that
China wants or needs competitively? Obviously so. So this places the
onus on ourselves. How do we overcome that?

China runs a positive trade balance, overall, of around US$30 billion
(2002). Their positive trade balance with the US in 2002 was US$103 billion.
Obviously, the US is their great sink-hole for manufactured products. In the
rest of the world, they run a $73 billion *deficit*.

Your "obviously so" is not so obvious. China runs into trade barriers and
various quid-pro-quo requirements with most of their trading partners --
except for the US, of course, which hardly restricts their imports at all.

How to overcome it? I've grown skeptical of the ability to liberalize trade
through the WTO. The WTO is an organization of roughly 170 countries that
collectively sinks $418 billion of their exports into the US. They really
want to keep the status quo, at least with the US.

As I said, I'm floating the idea of offsets. I like the idea more all the
time. It seems to me that they're the best way to end the big arguments. Did
you see what Geoff just wrote about our "barriers" to NZ trade? That's from
a little country that runs a $468 million *positive* trade balance with the
US. How do you deal with countries that keep wanting more, and blaming us
for "protectionism," when they already enjoy a positive trade balance with
us of $468 million? You impose a balance of trade -- offsets. That ends all
arguments. I like it.


I think these are the real questions we need to ask ourselves. Placing
blame on China's currency valuation is a farce. I know you are still
looking for that "other" system to base trade on, but in the meantime,
we have to look inward to solve our problems. Not place blame.

What does China do with the foreign reserves they get? They buy US
Treasuries, our debt.

Yeah, that, plus they're sitting on a small mountain of foreign reserves as
cash deposits in their (government owned) banks.

But you're getting into current-account/capital-account issues that are over
the head of anything we can reasonably discuss here in the newsgroup. It's
enough to say, I think, that no country in the world wants to see the US
dollar drop much in value. We can make small adjustments, but a big one
could easily bring on a world-wide depression. Nothing much is likely to
happen in that area. So it's an issue for the specialists.

ed, what do you think we should be focusing on? what moves do you
think we should make in the USA?

Elect me, and we'll have 100% trade offsets. Well, maybe 70%. g

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

"Koz" wrote in message
...

===============================
Currently, I am being driven nuts by the state's tax systems (because of
sales in multiple states...and having to go inspet stuff within that state).
===============================


So is every businessman in every country of the world. It's not a
competitive issue.


===============================
Anyway, this is just one area where we screw ourselves in terms of business
realtive to imports. Name some others please.
===============================

No, we have one of the lowest overall tax rates in the developed (and most
of the developing) world. China's tax rates, for example are about the same
as ours.

So it's not a competitive issue. Try again. g

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

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...

Secondly, unless that corporation is that evil of evils, a straight
out trader in companies and shares, the purpose of a corporation is
_not_ to earn value for its shareholders. The purpose of a corporation
is to carry out its job well.

Wrong wrong wrong. You would never make it in the 'evil
corporate boss' school. That is *exactly* the purported
reason for corporations to exist. To provide ROI. Not
any of the other touchy-feely crap. If they could provide
ROI to the shareholders by running little old ladies through
giant Waring blenders, they would do that. If they could
provide ROI by throwing orphans and widows out in the
streets in winter, they'd do *that*, too. This is the
fundamental tenent of capitalism, which is: if we can
boost the stock price somehow, even for a tiny bit, at
the expense of long term benefit, we *have* to do this,
or somebody else will, and eat our lunch.

That seems to be the way it's going, but that is NOT the reason corporations
are allowed to exist. Corporations are a creation of government -- the
children of the "limited-liability joint stockholders' association" -- which
we inherited from the Brits and modified to suit ourselves.

The reason they're given permission to exist as a legal entity is that they
serve the economic interests of the society in which they incorporate. As
recently as the '70s, the tenet of big business in America was that they had
multiple constituences -- stockholders, employees, customers, and community.
That's the way it was when I worked for a Fortune 500 company, from 1973 to
1981.

Then the hostile takeovers and the LBO's started, and the only way for
corporations to protect themselves was a two-pronged defense: get real nasty
and dirty, and turn all of their attention toward quarterly earnings and
growth.

But remember where it all came from. Corporations exist because they provide
an economic benefit to the society as a whole. They have no "rights," only
priviledges and permissions. It would be good to remind ourselves of this.

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

"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 06:48:15 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:


..........the imbalance, that is. Carl's agreement, and even Gary's
statements, may have caused some bobbles throughout time G.

Well... I can't speak for Gary, but I certainly hope I haven't done
anything to cause eddies in the wash of space-time g.

We haven't heard from Ed Huntress for a couple of days now...

-Carl

Jeez, SOMEBODY has to work once in a while around here. g I'll catch up. I
got real busy.

Ed Huntress

Although the U.S. is a large country, we don't consume a lot of sheep
meat. At least not per capita. Most of us don't know the difference
between lamb, hogget, and mutton( I might have misspelled hogget, my
dictionary does not have it listed ).


Fortunately we don't seem to have big tariffs on WINE. New Zealand
white wine is about the only white wine that I enjoy ( Villa Maria, in
case anyone is looking for a good not real expensive white ).

Dan


geoff merryweather wrote in message
Sounds good - so when is the US going to take more New Zealand
imports? When are they going to stop tarrifs and limits on sheep meat
from Australia and new Zealand - as ordered by the WTO 3 times? For
the average US citizen, sheep are wooly animals that damn few
americans know about, or grow, but they have some powerful friends in
Congress. Offsets sound good to me - of course it goes both ways...
The US is one of the most protected markets in the world
Geoff

In article , Ed Huntress says...

But remember where it all came from. Corporations exist because they provide
an economic benefit to the society as a whole. They have no "rights," only
priviledges and permissions. It would be good to remind ourselves of this.

Unfortunately this is still in flux. Corporations are
gaining more and more 'rights' as citizens as time goes
on, and the present adminstration is allowing this to
happen.

I would cite the recent Nike example, where a group
sued them for false advertising, over their shoe
manufacture workforce.

Nike was going to claim first amendment rights, in
spite of the fact this was commercial speech - which
is not nearly as protected as individual speech.
But there was a large amount of boo-hooing when it
became apparent that corporations don't have the
same rights of speech as individuals, and that they
can't just say whatever they want in their advertising.

Many of the commentators claimed this would have a
major chilling effect on commerce. As I said,
boo hoo.

Ed I have to agree with you that corporations should
*not* enjoy the same rights and priviledges as citizens,
but as I said the government is beholden to them what
paid the money, and that means corporations are going
to get as many breaks as they can hire politicians.

Jim

Jim

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

"Why" wrote in message
...


ed, what do you think we should be focusing on? what moves do you
think we should make in the USA?

Elect me, and we'll have 100% trade offsets. Well, maybe 70%. g

Vote for ED! And git them 1942 Brownies running 24/7

That's right, I almost forgot. We need a museum, too. d8-)

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress writes:

Corporations exist because they provide
an economic benefit to the society as a whole. They have no "rights,"
only priviledges and permissions.

Cmon. Corporations may be a kind of legal fiction, but there is
nevertheless a natural law aspect to them, not just economic expedience. A
group of people freely choosing to act in concert should have some of the
rights of those group members as individuals, and have the ability to
restrict the sphere of activity (both overt actions and liability) to the
chartered purpose.

You might as well say nations only exist for economic benefits. It is more
than that.

Ed Huntress writes:

Elect me, and we'll have 100% trade offsets. Well, maybe 70%.

I will vote for any r.c.m poster before any common politician. Despite your
nutty notions of trade.

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Huntress writes:

Corporations exist because they provide
an economic benefit to the society as a whole. They have no "rights,"
only priviledges and permissions.

Cmon. Corporations may be a kind of legal fiction, but there is
nevertheless a natural law aspect to them, not just economic expedience.
A
group of people freely choosing to act in concert should have some of the
rights of those group members as individuals, and have the ability to
restrict the sphere of activity (both overt actions and liability) to the
chartered purpose.

What's the "natural law aspect" by which their liability is limited to their
investments? In the rest of law, natural or otherwise, every individual who
is an owner is liable.

Can you imagine the effect on equity investments in general if the
stockholders of Enron were individually liable for the company's losses?
That's what the special legal protections of corporations are all about.
They're granted because the economic activity brought on by reduced-risk
investment is beneficial to the whole society.

Ed Huntress

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Huntress writes:

Elect me, and we'll have 100% trade offsets. Well, maybe 70%.

I will vote for any r.c.m poster before any common politician. Despite
your
nutty notions of trade.

I think you've just suggested a foolish thing, and then illustrated why you
would act so foolishly. g

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress writes:

What's the "natural law aspect" by which their liability is limited to
their investments?

I'll grant that aspect is more theoretical and expedient. I was commenting
on your sweeping generalization, "Corporations exist [only] because they
provide an economic benefit to the society as a whole."

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Huntress writes:

What's the "natural law aspect" by which their liability is limited to
their investments?

I'll grant that aspect is more theoretical and expedient. I was
commenting
on your sweeping generalization, "Corporations exist [only] because they
provide an economic benefit to the society as a whole."

And that's precisely the historical justification for the legal entity of a
limited-liability corporation, Richard. There is nothing else there.

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress writes:

And that's precisely the historical justification for the legal entity
of a limited-liability corporation, Richard. There is nothing else
there.

Nothing else? How about:

-- Division of ownership from management
-- Ability to contract and own property longer than mortal individuals
-- Abstracted, transferable, fungible ownership
-- Restricting an enterprise to chartered purposes
-- Ability to divide a business across geographical boundaries

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)
"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Huntress writes:

And that's precisely the historical justification for the legal entity
of a limited-liability corporation, Richard. There is nothing else
there.

Nothing else? How about:

-- Division of ownership from management
-- Ability to contract and own property longer than mortal individuals
-- Abstracted, transferable, fungible ownership
-- Restricting an enterprise to chartered purposes
-- Ability to divide a business across geographical boundaries