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

Match them? Who would want to? With a per-capita GDP of $4,020 (the most
optimistic, PPP-based estimate), versus $34,320 for the United States,
China's growth was only a fraction of ours. "All of our endeavours" in 2003
produced (at an estimated growth rate of 3.1%) $1064 in actual growth per
person. In China, assuming the official growth rate of 8.2% is correct,
their economy grew by $330 per person -- in purchasing-price-parity (PPP)
dollars. So the hot Chinese economy is producing something less than 1/3 of
the growth per person that the US economy is producing. Their actual growth
in exchange-rate dollars was a small fraction of that.



However, your statistics aren't showing us which money went where, Ed.
Brown & Root's little Empire may have grown by eighty-seven bazillion
dollars but that doesn't mean **** to the *average* American, ya know
what I mean ? Are you making *more* money now than you did in 1985 ?

Tom wrote in message ...

I see it was announced today that the "corrupt fascist assholes'"
economy grew 9.1% in 2003, how's your model going, or does Bush
need more guns? :-)

That's the Federal deficit paying for more goverment employees, right?

And on the jobs front .... at long, long last 500 net new
jobs last month IIRC nationwide. First time it was not a net loss
since the shrub took office IIRC.
But they stopped counting most of the longer term unemployed as
unemployed too. Terminated the unemployment benefits.

I'd expect many of those new jobs are to replace folks now in
Iraq. 500+ US dead there ..... and just thinkhow much all those
new Federal hires and related produce in terms of real goods &
services .... is one $250/Hr lawyer worth 40 $6.25/Hr employees
from Mexico (in terms of GNP)?
--
Cliff

In article , Gunner says...

Now how are we going to punish half
the population for being evil?

Got rope?

If so, then go to:

"got funny white costumes with pointy hats and hoods?"

Jim

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

"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
om...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...

Match them? Who would want to? With a per-capita GDP of $4,020 (the most
optimistic, PPP-based estimate), versus $34,320 for the United States,
China's growth was only a fraction of ours. "All of our endeavours" in
2003
produced (at an estimated growth rate of 3.1%) $1064 in actual growth
per
person. In China, assuming the official growth rate of 8.2% is correct,
their economy grew by $330 per person -- in purchasing-price-parity
(PPP)
dollars. So the hot Chinese economy is producing something less than 1/3
of
the growth per person that the US economy is producing. Their actual
growth
in exchange-rate dollars was a small fraction of that.



However, your statistics aren't showing us which money went where, Ed.

Nor do they show where the money is going in China. What's the multiple
these days between a teenage girl who glues the soles onto Nikes in some
rural ******** of a factory, and an engineer in a coastal city?

Brown & Root's little Empire may have grown by eighty-seven bazillion
dollars but that doesn't mean **** to the *average* American, ya know
what I mean ?

Yeah, I know what you mean. The spread is too great. It happens to be a lot
less than that of almost any developing country, but it's still too great.

Are you making *more* money now than you did in 1985 ?

The first half, or the second half? g I think that was the year that
LeBlond Makino decided they wanted a local agency, and my income went from
decent six-figures to about 1/3 of that. The month of May, I think...

Ed Huntress

wrote:

When they reach the sea, they try to swim it as they would a
river and drown in the attempt.

What part of "drown" don't you understand?

Drown and suicide are two different things.

Wayne (aka Captain Obvious)

Strider wrote:


My claim is easy to "back up". Liberals are busy trying to sue
everyone into submission on cigarettes, gun, food, religion,
sexuality, and even the size of your cars. The "rulings" by leftwing
judges are presented nearly every week, usually followed by reversals
by higher courts.

You haven't backed that up, not to mention that your claim was that *I*
was the one suing, which you *can't* back up, because you made it up.

Liberals are evil. You people think you know what's best for everyone
else and if we don't go along peacefully with your warped logic then
you are ever willing to use the legal hammer to enforce your will on
us.

Once again, let's see a cite where I'm advocating forcing you to do
anything. Is there an echo in here?

No wonder you people are so despised in America.

BTW, the economy is getting better quickly and Iraq is seeing good
progress. Now that Bush is getting these things under control I see
leftwing whiners like you striving for more things to bitch about. No
doubt, you would scream and cry like little girls if Bush didn't win
on Jeopardy. After all, you don't have much left to carp about, but
I'm sure that you lying, sniveling *******s will find something.

LOL I can see the veins in your neck... I think you're gonna' blow any
minute! I'd watch Jeopardy if Bush was on it. Better yet Ben Stein's
Money, where shrub could wear the pointy hat for the whole episode.

Wayne

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 06:07:43 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Strider" wrote in message
news

Liberals are evil. You people think you know what's best for everyone
else and if we don't go along peacefully with your warped logic then
you are ever willing to use the legal hammer to enforce your will on
us.

No wonder you people are so despised in America.

Actually, Strider, that isn't America. You're probably talking about the
western territories, which we Americans mistakenly allowed into the union.
g

In America, neither liberals nor conservatives are despised. They're both
tolerated as legitimate parts of the polity and the political process. In
the dark recesses of angst and bitterness, paranoia, scapegoating, and
hatred -- the places where assholes like you hang out -- everybody despises
everybody.

You might need an enema. They can help with the hard cases such as yourself.

Ed Huntress


I'll give your advice all the credit it deserves.

***plink***

Strider

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:36:33 GMT, "wmbjk" wrote:

Strider wrote:


My claim is easy to "back up". Liberals are busy trying to sue
everyone into submission on cigarettes, gun, food, religion,
sexuality, and even the size of your cars. The "rulings" by leftwing
judges are presented nearly every week, usually followed by reversals
by higher courts.

You haven't backed that up, not to mention that your claim was that *I*
was the one suing, which you *can't* back up, because you made it up.

I said you people, that would be you gaggle of leftwing loons.

You know damn well what lawsuits I'm talking about.


Liberals are evil. You people think you know what's best for everyone
else and if we don't go along peacefully with your warped logic then
you are ever willing to use the legal hammer to enforce your will on
us.

Once again, let's see a cite where I'm advocating forcing you to do
anything. Is there an echo in here?

It's what liberals do.


No wonder you people are so despised in America.

BTW, the economy is getting better quickly and Iraq is seeing good
progress. Now that Bush is getting these things under control I see
leftwing whiners like you striving for more things to bitch about. No
doubt, you would scream and cry like little girls if Bush didn't win
on Jeopardy. After all, you don't have much left to carp about, but
I'm sure that you lying, sniveling *******s will find something.

LOL I can see the veins in your neck... I think you're gonna' blow any
minute! I'd watch Jeopardy if Bush was on it. Better yet Ben Stein's
Money, where shrub could wear the pointy hat for the whole episode.

Wayne


Bush would do better than any of that leftwing freak circus trying to
get nominated.

Strider

In article , Strider says...

You might need an enema. They can help with the hard cases such as yourself.

I'll give your advice all the credit it deserves.

***plink***

Ah well he was probably a liberal anyway, a
sub-human. Just one more person to hate.

Jim

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

"Strider" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:36:33 GMT, "wmbjk" wrote:


You haven't backed that up, not to mention that your claim was that *I*
was the one suing, which you *can't* back up, because you made it up.

I said you people, that would be you gaggle of leftwing loons.

You know damn well what lawsuits I'm talking about.


I wasnt paying attention............

This about Bill Gates again ???

--

SVL

"Strider" wrote in message
...

You might need an enema. They can help with the hard cases such as
yourself.

Ed Huntress


I'll give your advice all the credit it deserves.

***plink***

Ah, the sound of Strider's brains falling on the floor. It doesn't make much
noise, but it sure puts up a stink.

Speaking of which, when you get around to that enema, don't forget that Home
Depot rents power washers.

Ed Huntress

On 21 Jan 2004 05:03:49 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Now how are we going to punish half
the population for being evil?

Got rope?

If so, then go to:

"got funny white costumes with pointy hats and hoods?"

Jim

The Nuremburg Trials were held by the Klan?
Interesting world you live in Jim.

Actually..lynching is a Democrat staple. One only has to look at the
South for many examples. You are aware that the vast majority of the
Klan has historicaly been Democrats? Hummm lets look at some Democrat
Governors shall we?

Lester Maddox
Georg Wallace
Patterson
Conners

Seems the Republicans, despite the active resistance of the Democrats,
managed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Robert Kennedy wiretapped, survailed, tracked and besmirched Dr. King.
Which Democrat President freed the slaves? Lincoln was a Republican.

On a note closer to my heart..the roots of gun control in the US was
created by Democrats making sure blacks were unable to defend themselves
from the night riders.

Climb down from your ivory tower Jim..and admit your bias and core
racism.

Gunner



"As my father told me long ago, the objective is not to convince someone
with your arguments but to provide the arguments with which he later
convinces himself."
David Friedman

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Seems the Republicans, despite the active resistance of the Democrats,
managed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Robert Kennedy wiretapped, survailed, tracked and besmirched Dr. King.
Which Democrat President freed the slaves? Lincoln was a Republican.

On a note closer to my heart..the roots of gun control in the US was
created by Democrats making sure blacks were unable to defend themselves
from the night riders.

Climb down from your ivory tower Jim..and admit your bias and core
racism.

Gunner

Yeah, it was all those liberal Democrats who populated the Klan.

Gunner, are you getting into word magic, or do you think anyone is so stupid
that they don't recognize what you're doing here? As for those moderate
Republicans, primarily Ev Dirksen, who pushed through the CVA (it was 1964,
BTW, not 1968), I thought you said that moderate Republicans are RINOs?

So, which is it, are you now saying that you've come to realize that
southern Democrats actually were right-wing conservatives, which is true
(and they're almost all Republicans now, having converted during the '70s
and '80s), and that real Republicans are actually pro-civil-rights
moderates, which also is true?

BTW, where was your usual spit! when you mentioned Abe Lincoln? g

Ed Huntress
A Dirksen Republican since 1980

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:05:14 +1300, Tom
wrote:

(snips)

They had power because people believed in
them, unlike the corrupt fascist assholes in the guo min dang.

They had power because they had people willing to use guns
in their behalf. Now THEY are the corrupt fascist assholes.

I see it was announced today that the "corrupt fascist assholes'"
economy grew 9.1% in 2003, how's your model going, or does Bush
need more guns? :-)

Tom

What does rate of growth have to do with being fascist
assholes? How was Nazi Germany's rate of growth during the
30s?

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

You're the one that made the statement: "They had power because
they had people willing to use guns in their behalf."

Your own signature has you ascribing to the "the evil gun culture"
Yet for all your endeavours the US economy can't match the Chinese
for growth or come close!

Match them? Who would want to? With a per-capita GDP of $4,020 (the most
optimistic, PPP-based estimate), versus $34,320 for the United States,
China's growth was only a fraction of ours. "All of our endeavours" in 2003
produced (at an estimated growth rate of 3.1%) $1064 in actual growth per
person. In China, assuming the official growth rate of 8.2% is correct,
their economy grew by $330 per person -- in purchasing-price-parity (PPP)
dollars. .............

Ed Huntress

Just as well your not a banker, Ed, your perception
of percentages would not gain many depositors!

With you it seems that: "Percentages are percentages but
"our" percentages are always better than others!" :-)

Just as I'm sure economists in the US Government can
now rest easy as the Chinese economy is not growing in
a way that could be construed as a threat to US business..

As for the rest of your hyperbole, I suggest you have a rest,
get that BP down, before Robert picks you up for the meeting tonight...

Tom

"Tom" wrote in message
...

Your own signature has you ascribing to the "the evil gun culture"
Yet for all your endeavours the US economy can't match the Chinese
for growth or come close!

Match them? Who would want to? With a per-capita GDP of $4,020 (the most
optimistic, PPP-based estimate), versus $34,320 for the United States,
China's growth was only a fraction of ours. "All of our endeavours" in
2003
produced (at an estimated growth rate of 3.1%) $1064 in actual growth
per
person. In China, assuming the official growth rate of 8.2% is correct,
their economy grew by $330 per person -- in purchasing-price-parity
(PPP)
dollars. .............

Ed Huntress

Just as well your not a banker, Ed, your perception
of percentages would not gain many depositors!

With you it seems that: "Percentages are percentages but
"our" percentages are always better than others!" :-)

With me it's dollars are dollars, and a big percentage of nothing much is
still nothing much.

With you, a soccer team that won a soccer game last year and two this year,
out of 40 games, is having a banner year and is devastating the competition.
g

Ed Huntress

In article , Gunner says...

Actually..lynching is a Democrat staple.

You don't seem to get it.

I suggest that lynching is bad, no matter who does it.
Equating the members of a political party
with 'evil' is only a short step away from an
"end justifies the means" approach to solving your
political issues by lynching somebody.

You want to hang democrats. Other folks want to
tie gays to a pickup truck and drag 'em. Tie on
a dynamite jacket and go out marketing maybe.
Fill in the blanks ad nauseum.

I wasn't so much talking politics there as I
pointing out (yet again, sigh - even it it was
to a different person) that if you view the world
through black/white glasses, and the only kind
of paint you have is checkered black/white,
then you are pretty limited in your approach
to difference or conflict.

In spite of the fact that such a person has a
warm, comfortable, fuzzy feeling when they think
about themselves, they're gonna be sorely disapointed
and quite upset when they have to walk around
amongst the rest of the population. The only way
it really works is if you sit in your own private
unibomber cabin forever - even that's been shown
to have its drawbacks too though.

Jim

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

In article , Strider
writes:

You know damn well what lawsuits I'm talking about.

Did you make me spill my coffee?
--
Cliff

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...

Your own signature has you ascribing to the "the evil gun culture"
Yet for all your endeavours the US economy can't match the Chinese
for growth or come close!

Match them? Who would want to? With a per-capita GDP of $4,020 (the most
optimistic, PPP-based estimate), versus $34,320 for the United States,
China's growth was only a fraction of ours. "All of our endeavours" in
2003
produced (at an estimated growth rate of 3.1%) $1064 in actual growth
per
person. In China, assuming the official growth rate of 8.2% is correct,
their economy grew by $330 per person -- in purchasing-price-parity
(PPP)
dollars. .............

Ed Huntress

Just as well your not a banker, Ed, your perception
of percentages would not gain many depositors!

With you it seems that: "Percentages are percentages but
"our" percentages are always better than others!" :-)

With me it's dollars are dollars, and a big percentage of nothing much is
still nothing much.

With you, a soccer team that won a soccer game last year and two this year,
out of 40 games, is having a banner year and is devastating the competition.
g

Ed Huntress

Soccer? what is that? Is it like baseball?
Remind again me how many countries attend the World Series?

Tom

Strider wrote:


I'll give your advice all the credit it deserves.

***plink***

LOL This whole plonking business is goofy. Why would anyone care who
you read, or who you don't? Is he supposed to be insulted? But if you're
going to plonk someone, and want to make a big deal of it, I think
you're supposed to say "massive plonk" or some such. Plink makes it seem
like you're a dismal typist, speller or proof reader, take your pick.
Either that or you're a girly boy.

Wayne

Strider wrote:

Bush would do better than any of that leftwing freak circus trying to
get nominated.

Oh man, even the most diehard partisan rightwingnut should know better
than to claim a shrub victory on Jeopardy, even if it was against grade
eighters. He's afraid to hold news conferences for cryin' out loud.

Wayne

"Tom" wrote in message
...


Just as well your not a banker, Ed, your perception
of percentages would not gain many depositors!

With you it seems that: "Percentages are percentages but
"our" percentages are always better than others!" :-)

With me it's dollars are dollars, and a big percentage of nothing much
is
still nothing much.

With you, a soccer team that won a soccer game last year and two this
year,
out of 40 games, is having a banner year and is devastating the
competition.
g

Ed Huntress

Soccer? what is that? Is it like baseball?
Remind again me how many countries attend the World Series?

'Having trouble staying focused are you, Tom? Do you want to continue to try
to explain how a $330 per capita increase is greater than a $1,064 per
capita increase? Or have you given up on that, and want to spill out some
more of your anti-American bile on another subject?

As for the Series, I'm worried about Boston this year. If they get A-Rod in
a trade -- and even if they don't -- they could be trouble for my beloved
Yanks.

Ed Huntress

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:59:57 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...


Just as well your not a banker, Ed, your perception
of percentages would not gain many depositors!

With you it seems that: "Percentages are percentages but
"our" percentages are always better than others!" :-)

With me it's dollars are dollars, and a big percentage of nothing much
is
still nothing much.

With you, a soccer team that won a soccer game last year and two this
year,
out of 40 games, is having a banner year and is devastating the
competition.
g

Ed Huntress

Soccer? what is that? Is it like baseball?
Remind again me how many countries attend the World Series?

'Having trouble staying focused are you, Tom? Do you want to continue to try
to explain how a $330 per capita increase is greater than a $1,064 per
capita increase? Or have you given up on that, and want to spill out some
more of your anti-American bile on another subject?

As for the Series, I'm worried about Boston this year. If they get A-Rod in
a trade -- and even if they don't -- they could be trouble for my beloved
Yanks.

The Yankees? I just knew there was something wrong with you. g
Sue

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...


Just as well your not a banker, Ed, your perception
of percentages would not gain many depositors!

With you it seems that: "Percentages are percentages but
"our" percentages are always better than others!" :-)

With me it's dollars are dollars, and a big percentage of nothing much
is
still nothing much.

With you, a soccer team that won a soccer game last year and two this
year,
out of 40 games, is having a banner year and is devastating the
competition.
g

Ed Huntress

Soccer? what is that? Is it like baseball?
Remind again me how many countries attend the World Series?

'Having trouble staying focused are you, Tom? Do you want to continue to try
to explain how a $330 per capita increase is greater than a $1,064 per
capita increase? Or have you given up on that, and want to spill out some
more of your anti-American bile on another subject?

As for the Series, I'm worried about Boston this year. If they get A-Rod in
a trade -- and even if they don't -- they could be trouble for my beloved
Yanks.

Ed Huntress

You have got your knickers in a twist!

Why should I explain anything? You're the one that stated
that a 3.1% growth is greater than 9.1% growth, I'm not
up with the "new" maths, or should I say spin?

What's with the "World" Series, Ed? Not maintaining too much
of a focus yourself, I thought the question was simple enough,
even for you. Perhaps you're in need of some antacid..

Tom

"Tom" wrote in message
...


Soccer? what is that? Is it like baseball?
Remind again me how many countries attend the World Series?

'Having trouble staying focused are you, Tom? Do you want to continue to
try
to explain how a $330 per capita increase is greater than a $1,064 per
capita increase? Or have you given up on that, and want to spill out
some
more of your anti-American bile on another subject?

As for the Series, I'm worried about Boston this year. If they get A-Rod
in
a trade -- and even if they don't -- they could be trouble for my
beloved
Yanks.

Ed Huntress

You have got your knickers in a twist!

Gee, not that I've noticed. Perhaps you're projecting?


Why should I explain anything? You're the one that stated
that a 3.1% growth is greater than 9.1% growth, I'm not
up with the "new" maths, or should I say spin?

But it IS, Tom, if you start from a much higher base. In the case of the US
versus China, 3.1% is actually three times more growth than 8.2%.

Did you have a bit of trouble with mathematics in school, perhaps? Do you
actually know how to calculate a percentage, or is it all magic to you?


What's with the "World" Series, Ed? Not maintaining too much
of a focus yourself, I thought the question was simple enough,
even for you. Perhaps you're in need of some antacid..

Do you want to talk baseball, then? What do you think about the Astros this
year, with both Pettit and Clemens as starters? Do you think Clemens has
anything left in that arm, at 41?

Hey, Jesse Orosco announced his retirement today. Jeez, a 47-year-old
pitcher...

Concerning the World Series, is New Zealand planning to challenge for the
title? Maybe they'll do something like what they did the first time they
challenged for the America's Cup: field a 128-foot-long boat in a class that
only allows 64-footers. It seems you have some very good sports lawyers who
found a loophole...

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...


Soccer? what is that? Is it like baseball?
Remind again me how many countries attend the World Series?

'Having trouble staying focused are you, Tom? Do you want to continue to
try
to explain how a $330 per capita increase is greater than a $1,064 per
capita increase? Or have you given up on that, and want to spill out
some
more of your anti-American bile on another subject?

As for the Series, I'm worried about Boston this year. If they get A-Rod
in
a trade -- and even if they don't -- they could be trouble for my
beloved
Yanks.

Ed Huntress

You have got your knickers in a twist!

Gee, not that I've noticed. Perhaps you're projecting?


Why should I explain anything? You're the one that stated
that a 3.1% growth is greater than 9.1% growth, I'm not
up with the "new" maths, or should I say spin?

But it IS, Tom, if you start from a much higher base. In the case of the US
versus China, 3.1% is actually three times more growth than 8.2%.

Did you have a bit of trouble with mathematics in school, perhaps? Do you
actually know how to calculate a percentage, or is it all magic to you?


What's with the "World" Series, Ed? Not maintaining too much
of a focus yourself, I thought the question was simple enough,
even for you. Perhaps you're in need of some antacid..

Do you want to talk baseball, then? What do you think about the Astros this
year, with both Pettit and Clemens as starters? Do you think Clemens has
anything left in that arm, at 41?

Hey, Jesse Orosco announced his retirement today. Jeez, a 47-year-old
pitcher...

Concerning the World Series, is New Zealand planning to challenge for the
title? Maybe they'll do something like what they did the first time they
challenged for the America's Cup: field a 128-foot-long boat in a class that
only allows 64-footers. It seems you have some very good sports lawyers who
found a loophole...

Ed Huntress

Alright Ed, next time someone offers you a raise, shoot for 3%,
cos that's better than 9...:-)

As for baseball, not into minority sports, although I
had heard that some team was having to import talent
from Japan?

As for the AC, the general thought while the US retained it,
was that:
"Britannia rules the waves, but the US waives the rules.." :-)

What the NYYC spent on winning the Cup in the court rooms over
the years would probably have been greater than the GDP of many
countries..:-)

Tom

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:42:08 +1300, Tom
wrote:

(snips)

Alright Ed, next time someone offers you a raise, shoot for 3%,
cos that's better than 9...:-)

Which would you rather have, Tom, $4,000 * 1.09 or $40,000 *
1.03? It shouldn't be too hard to figure out, even for you.

(rest snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

"Tom" wrote in message
...


Alright Ed, next time someone offers you a raise, shoot for 3%,
cos that's better than 9...:-)

If they offer me 3% of $34,000, versus 9% of $4,000, as with the US versus
China, I certainly will take the 3% of $34,000. It's an old mathematician's
trick. d8-)


As for baseball, not into minority sports, although I
had heard that some team was having to import talent
from Japan?

Hey, baseball is an international sport, pard'. The Yankees have two
Japanese players, a Venezuelan manager (who played for them until last
year), two players from the Dominican Republic and one from Panama. They've
had two Cuban starting pitchers over the last couple of years. Boston has a
Korean closer, somebody (maybe Boston again?) has an Australian relief
pitcher. There's at least one Frenchman in the Major Leagues, several
Mexicans, and so on.

And there are a bunch of American players playing in Japan.


What the NYYC spent on winning the Cup in the court rooms over
the years would probably have been greater than the GDP of many
countries..:-)


FWIW, there isn't a yachtsman in the world who fully trusts the Kiwis after
that escapade. It may be the greatest example of poor sportsmanship in the
annals of international sport.

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...


Alright Ed, next time someone offers you a raise, shoot for 3%,
cos that's better than 9...:-)

If they offer me 3% of $34,000, versus 9% of $4,000, as with the US versus
China, I certainly will take the 3% of $34,000. It's an old mathematician's
trick. d8-)


As for baseball, not into minority sports, although I
had heard that some team was having to import talent
from Japan?

Hey, baseball is an international sport, pard'. The Yankees have two
Japanese players, a Venezuelan manager (who played for them until last
year), two players from the Dominican Republic and one from Panama. They've
had two Cuban starting pitchers over the last couple of years. Boston has a
Korean closer, somebody (maybe Boston again?) has an Australian relief
pitcher. There's at least one Frenchman in the Major Leagues, several
Mexicans, and so on.

And there are a bunch of American players playing in Japan.


What the NYYC spent on winning the Cup in the court rooms over
the years would probably have been greater than the GDP of many
countries..:-)

FWIW, there isn't a yachtsman in the world who fully trusts the Kiwis after
that escapade. It may be the greatest example of poor sportsmanship in the
annals of international sport.

Ed Huntress

Of course Dennis Conner & his catamaran was the "real thing"?
Real sporting and in the spirit of the deed! Yeah, right!

By the way, it's interesting that Dennis doesn't share your
views on Kiwi yachties, isn't it? But then he's man enough to
admit that Kiwi skippers have proved to be the best in the last
3 Cup regattas...

As for poor sportsmanship, I think we're quite happy to abide
by world opinion, lets face it, it's more informed..

I'll suppose next, you'll want to bring how we told the US to
**** off with their nuclear armed navy?

Tom

"Tom" wrote in message
...


What the NYYC spent on winning the Cup in the court rooms over
the years would probably have been greater than the GDP of many
countries..:-)

FWIW, there isn't a yachtsman in the world who fully trusts the Kiwis
after
that escapade. It may be the greatest example of poor sportsmanship in
the
annals of international sport.

Ed Huntress

Of course Dennis Conner & his catamaran was the "real thing"?
Real sporting and in the spirit of the deed! Yeah, right!

That was in response to the 128-footer. They weren't going to let those
jerks get away with it, and they didn't. More power to him. It may have
saved the Cup for the rest of the world, because the holder of the Cup set
the rules in those days. In the case of the US, holding the cup after that
little Kiwi adventure, they worked out a plan with the IYRU that kept it
from happening ever again.



By the way, it's interesting that Dennis doesn't share your
views on Kiwi yachties, isn't it? But then he's man enough to
admit that Kiwi skippers have proved to be the best in the last
3 Cup regattas...

They're excellent skippers. And Dennis is too much of a gentleman to say
what's been on the mind of long-time international yachtsmen ever since. I
know a few.


As for poor sportsmanship, I think we're quite happy to abide
by world opinion, lets face it, it's more informed..

You no longer have a choice.


I'll suppose next, you'll want to bring how we told the US to
**** off with their nuclear armed navy?

Not likely. I don't recall ever having initiated a flame with you, Tom.
That's your specialty, armed as you are with an endless stream of
anti-American resentments. As for my opinion of New Zealand, I happen to
like lamb quite a lot.

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" writes:

But it IS, Tom [note: this was to another Tom, not me], if you start
from a much higher base. In the case of the US versus China, 3.1% is
actually three times more growth than 8.2%.

This topic is a lot more complicated than the two of you make it out
to be. However, economic growth measured as money is not something
economists tend to care much about. Rates of growth are what matter
in the long run -- a rich country in stagnation is in a much worse
situation than a poor country experiencing rapid growth. The USA is
certainly the largest, single economy in the world, and it experiences
healthy growth these days (although there are worrying aspects too,
such as the lag in the job market, the budget deficit, and the ugly
average savings/earnings ratio). However, China's economy is growing
at an incredible rate, and looks poised to take over, within a few
decades, America's role as primary engine of the world economy. There
are downsides in China too, of course, and a lot rides on the ability
of the administration to complete the controlled transition of the
country into a capitalist democracy. So far, they're at least doing a
heck of a lot better than the poor Russians did...

OBmetal: my new 7x12 is on a slow boat from China right now! :-)

-tih
--
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway
www.eunet.no T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message .net...
"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
om...


However, your statistics aren't showing us which money went where, Ed.

Nor do they show where the money is going in China. What's the multiple
these days between a teenage girl who glues the soles onto Nikes in some
rural ******** of a factory, and an engineer in a coastal city?


Don't know anyone in a Nike factory ... but I do know some girls in
a sweater factory. They get about 1,000 a month plus food and board.
Not too great but they can live on that and go home at Spring Festival
and buy presents and stuff. Not expensive ones, but still ...
Engineers
in coastal cities about 4,000 clear but have to pay for their own
house.
Lunch is still free but not dinner. Four to one sounds about right.

Now, if you'd chosen to compare with the few bigshots instead of an
engineer, then the ratio is akin to what you'd see in the US. However,
there aren't that many bigshots and even then, their bigshottiness
isn't
usually THAT much.

What *really* stands out tho is that even if you only earn a pittance
in China, there is a place for you to live. You aren't dirt. None of
the hot singsongs will want to marry with you, but other people don't
treat you like scum becasue you work with your hands and you CAN live
okay on what you make. To return to the stats which you used
originally,
*much* of the balance of payments money that comes to China goes into
public works. The zoomy maglevs in Beijing and Shanghai came from the
money from exports. The subway systems likewise. The new buildings all
over Shanghai. The *dropping* rental and home prices all over China.
Etc etc etc. What you're saying is that the rate of growth for the US
is so much higher, but you can't tell me WHERE the money is going. I
can say that the money in China in general is going to make the
average
person's life better. I never saw Bill Gates' increasing bank account
as making my life better when I lived in California. In fact, if
anything,
the big-ass computer boom in the Bay Area made my life demonstrably
WORSE. Same with garlicDood, same with SC Mike. Same with you, in
fact.


Are you making *more* money now than you did in 1985 ?

The first half, or the second half? g I think that was the year that
LeBlond Makino decided they wanted a local agency, and my income went from
decent six-figures to about 1/3 of that. The month of May, I think...


Well, there ya go. Snacked on by your own statistics. Sure, "per
capita"
the US is growing wondrously, the envy of the world, blabla. But what
does that really mean to the average American ? It's not impossible
that
this 'growth' into the hands of a few actually *damages* the income
and lifestyle of the majority - or if not the majority, the
manufacturing
community for sure. If not, then you'd probably be happily ensconced
in
a corner office in _Machining's_ Manhattan building, eating escargot
and
drinking rare vintages of French wine over two hour lunches.

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


With you, a soccer team that won a soccer game last year and two this year,
out of 40 games, is having a banner year and is devastating the competition.
g


All my friends DID laugh at me in '78 for doing exactly that with
the phony-niners. A few years later *everybody* was a "die-hard,
old-time 'niners fan" :-)

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


'Having trouble staying focused are you, Tom? Do you want to continue to try
to explain how a $330 per capita increase is greater than a $1,064 per
capita increase?

That part is easy. If the cost of living is going down the $330
increase means a better life. If the cost of living is going up,
the $1064 just means you don't go backwards quite so fast. Would
you like to look at the figures for house prices in Marin County
over the past ten years ? I know, I know ... the US has no meaning-
ful inflation. This is why the exact same loaf of bread that was
$.89 two years ago is $2.19 now. And the house that my mom sold
in 1970 for $24,000 would cost you a nice round $850,000 or more
today. In 1978 I was charging $60/hour for cnc turning time (I
didn't have a Sheldon, so it was okay :-) Sure, inserts are better
now, but you can *not* make the same part I was doing in 1980 in
ten minutes in two today ... and even if you *could*, there's no
way that would overcome the huge increases in housing, food, health,
and transportation. Oh yeah, I think Kaiser cost something like
$75/month in 1980, too. When I crashed and burned, it cost five
bucks to stay in the hospital for ten days. They didn't cancel me
the day after, either. Then, whether YOU and/or the rest of us dumbo
machinists even SEE that fricking $1064 is another question entirely ...

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


Alright Ed, next time someone offers you a raise, shoot for 3%,
cos that's better than 9...:-)

If they offer me 3% of $34,000, versus 9% of $4,000, as with the US versus
China, I certainly will take the 3% of $34,000. It's an old mathematician's
trick. d8-)


I took the 9% of $4,000 and I'm happy. If you'd been here the other
night you'd know there are things you just can't buy. Freedom, for
one. Human relationships, for another.


FWIW, there isn't a yachtsman in the world who fully trusts the Kiwis after
that escapade. It may be the greatest example of poor sportsmanship in the
annals of international sport.


Conner may not have started that series of shyster games but he wasn't
far behind with the catamaran trick. After a few of those silly seasons
the America's Cup kinda came back down to earth ... but imo it's ****
since it's become so commercial. BTW, it wasn't really a "64-foot class,"
ever. The cup-holder was always the one who decided what kind of boat to
race. It had just been in NYYC hands for so long that they thought they
owned the thing. They also pulled some *very* shady maneuvers a few times
in the past : Lipton would have won if he hadn't been cheated. He was just
too much the English Sportsman to complain.

Robert Sturgeon wrote in message . ..


Which would you rather have, Tom, $4,000 * 1.09 or $40,000 *
1.03? It shouldn't be too hard to figure out, even for you.



If taking the $40,000 means one has to live in that ********
called the United States, then the $4,000 is a better deal.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:48:42 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Seems the Republicans, despite the active resistance of the Democrats,
managed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Robert Kennedy wiretapped, survailed, tracked and besmirched Dr. King.
Which Democrat President freed the slaves? Lincoln was a Republican.

On a note closer to my heart..the roots of gun control in the US was
created by Democrats making sure blacks were unable to defend themselves
from the night riders.

Climb down from your ivory tower Jim..and admit your bias and core
racism.

Gunner

Yeah, it was all those liberal Democrats who populated the Klan.

Gunner, are you getting into word magic, or do you think anyone is so stupid
that they don't recognize what you're doing here? As for those moderate
Republicans, primarily Ev Dirksen, who pushed through the CVA (it was 1964,
BTW, not 1968), I thought you said that moderate Republicans are RINOs?

So, which is it, are you now saying that you've come to realize that
southern Democrats actually were right-wing conservatives, which is true
(and they're almost all Republicans now, having converted during the '70s
and '80s), and that real Republicans are actually pro-civil-rights
moderates, which also is true?

BTW, where was your usual spit! when you mentioned Abe Lincoln? g

Ed Huntress
A Dirksen Republican since 1980


Hey..just using a page from the Demonrat playbook. Argue using the best
possible spin or the worst possible spin, depending on who and what youa
are arguing with.

Its worked fine for 40 + yrs with the Demonrats..so why bitch?

Gunner



"As my father told me long ago, the objective is not to convince someone
with your arguments but to provide the arguments with which he later
convinces himself."
David Friedman

"Tom Ivar Helbekkmo" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" writes:

But it IS, Tom [note: this was to another Tom, not me], if you start
from a much higher base. In the case of the US versus China, 3.1% is
actually three times more growth than 8.2%.

This topic is a lot more complicated than the two of you make it out
to be.

Of course it is. I spent the last year of my life researching it and writing
a couple of lengthy magazine articles about it.

However, economic growth measured as money is not something
economists tend to care much about.

I beg your pardon, Tom, but it is *indeed* something economists care much
about.

It depends upon what the economist is thinking about. If he's projecting
long-term economic growth, he's more interested in rates of growth. If he's
looking at the current world economy and what is influencing it, he has
little interest in percentage rates of growth. He's looking at current
patterns of production and consumption, wealth generated over a
contemporaneous span of time, exports and imports, and so on.

To use your country, the US, and China as examples, China absorbs roughly
1.1% of your exports, while the US absorbs 7.7% (2001 figures, which are the
latest I have). So every 1% rate of growth in the US economy has seven times
the effect on YOUR economy as a 1% growth in China's economy. That 3.1% we
grew last year represents roughly three times as much effect on YOUR economy
as China's 8.2% (a more likely figure than China's claimed 9.1%). This is a
simplification, of course, but any measure you apply to it produces the same
pattern, whether you base it on the total size of our economies, the
per-capita figures, our total volume of exports and imports, or whatever.
You always get roughly the same result.

This is why I scoff at Tom's silly "can't keep up" remark. To the world
economy as a whole, the important issue about one country's economy is how m
uch actual growth or shrinkage occurs in the factors that have an *external*
effect. What it may represent internally, as a *rate* of growth in
percentage terms, is all but irrelevant. Its relevance is in long-term
trends but not in current accounts. And, of course, it matters domestically,
to China itself.

Rates of growth are what matter
in the long run -- a rich country in stagnation is in a much worse
situation than a poor country experiencing rapid growth. The USA is
certainly the largest, single economy in the world, and it experiences
healthy growth these days (although there are worrying aspects too,
such as the lag in the job market, the budget deficit, and the ugly
average savings/earnings ratio).

Well, your last comment suggests that you're looking at the US economy
through a European filter. In fact, what you identify as "ugly" may be an
important factor in why Japan's economy has been stalled for so long, and
why Germany keeps slipping back a half-step for every step they take
forward. Large economies may need very high rates of consumption, and heavy
reliance upon international capital flows as opposed to domestic savings, in
order to produce the kind of leading growth that the US economy usually
provides to the world as a whole, when it's been in a slump. From one fairly
angular perspective, domestic saving is a market distortion to international
flows of capital -- recent months of foreign investment figures in the US
providing evidence of the possibility. And it's questionable what harm low
savings rates actually do to a dominant economy.

Many world economists are worried about the US's current accounts, including
some prominent ones of our own (I'm currently reading _In An Uncertain
World_ by Robert Rubin, one of our most respected economists, and *he's*
certainly worried about it). My own background in economics is fairly
traditional and conservative and I'm worried about it, too.

But many prominent economists disagree. There is the cautionary tale of the
US in the early '80s and again in the mid-to-late '90s. Actual growth
completely swamped negative positions in our current accounts on both
occassions, in flat contradiction to what traditional economics said was
possible. When anyone tells me they have the answer to this, my response is
skeptical. I don't think that anyone knows.

However, China's economy is growing
at an incredible rate, and looks poised to take over, within a few
decades, America's role as primary engine of the world economy.

Very possibly. However, looked at from a current perspective, China's growth
is the growth of a plant just beginning to bear noticeable amounts of fruit,
compared to the production of a mature plant. A 10% rise in their tomato
production isn't going to give you enough tomato juice to make a difference.
g

There
are downsides in China too, of course, and a lot rides on the ability
of the administration to complete the controlled transition of the
country into a capitalist democracy. So far, they're at least doing a
heck of a lot better than the poor Russians did...

I've developed a great interest in what is going to happen to China's
economy over the next five years. We've seen all the trendlines and
projections, and the enormous size of China's population, to a marketing
person, is enough to make his lips smack with delight. The growth rates of
China's economy over the past decade, if they actually do project for two
decades more, indicate that it will be the dominant economy.

The reason I'm interested in the next five years is that China is about to
run into a brick wall with its exports. Europe and Japan will never stand
for the kind of wrenching, dislocating effect of $100+ billion trade
deficits the US is experiencing now. The question is what China will do when
its mercantilist economy has to make the transition to one that depends on
domestic consumption to sustain growth. Projecting the growth in China's
current domestic consumption is not valid; much of that growth is based on
deficit spending of their import profits, as Hamei points out in another
message in this thread. When that can no longer be counted on to supply
sufficient growth, China's economy will experience its moment of truth.


OBmetal: my new 7x12 is on a slow boat from China right now! :-)

Watch out for sand pockets in the castings. g And good luck with it.

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

"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
om...


FWIW, there isn't a yachtsman in the world who fully trusts the Kiwis
after
that escapade. It may be the greatest example of poor sportsmanship in
the
annals of international sport.


Conner may not have started that series of shyster games but he wasn't
far behind with the catamaran trick.

Oh, Hamei, don't be silly. Conner defended with the catamaran because
Michael Fay was trying to exploit an ancient quirk in the rules by
challenging with a 128-foot boat against 12-meter yachts that had less than
60 feet on the waterline. You know what that means in terms of boat speed,
right? Fay's boat had a natural hull speed that was 1.4 times that of a
12-meter. It was the biggest cheat in America's Cup history, and Conner just
wasn't going to let him walk away with it.

I'd still like to know what Fay was thinking. What kind of a greedy *******
is he, anyway? What does he think he would have won?

After a few of those silly seasons
the America's Cup kinda came back down to earth ... but imo it's ****
since it's become so commercial. BTW, it wasn't really a "64-foot class,"
ever. The cup-holder was always the one who decided what kind of boat to
race. It had just been in NYYC hands for so long that they thought they
owned the thing.

Well, if that was the case, how did a 128-footer sneak in? You may have read
the ancient Deed. What happened was that there was no hip-pocket challenger,
so the terms defaulted to let the challenger decide the type of boat, with
no need for agreement. When the US had the cup and there was a hip-pocket
challenger, the rules said that the two sides had to agree on the type of
boat.

They also pulled some *very* shady maneuvers a few times
in the past : Lipton would have won if he hadn't been cheated. He was just
too much the English Sportsman to complain.

It's always been a rough game. We never saw Lipton OR the NYYC show up with
a boat that was twice as big as the competitors', though. That was a new
low.

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

"Ed Huntress" writes:

However, economic growth measured as money is not something
economists tend to care much about.

I beg your pardon, Tom, but it is *indeed* something economists care much
about.

Touché -- oversimplification on my part there, colored by the fact
that I, personally, find long-term trends and effects much more
interesting. (And, in the case of China as an evolving economy, I'd
contend that the long-term effects are much more important than the
immediate ones.) Besides, you were being deliberately obtuse in your
exchange with the other Tom, weren't you? ;-)

OBmetal: my new 7x12 is on a slow boat from China right now! :-)

Watch out for sand pockets in the castings. g And good luck with it.

Thanks -- I will. Based on what I've heard and read, I think I'll
take it apart completely, and clean and lube everything, before I
start using it. mini-lathe.com will be my friend! :-)

-tih
--
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway
www.eunet.no T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901

"Tom Ivar Helbekkmo" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" writes:

However, economic growth measured as money is not something
economists tend to care much about.

I beg your pardon, Tom, but it is *indeed* something economists care
much
about.

Touché -- oversimplification on my part there, colored by the fact
that I, personally, find long-term trends and effects much more
interesting.

There's a natural-born economist for you. g

(And, in the case of China as an evolving economy, I'd
contend that the long-term effects are much more important than the
immediate ones.)

Probably. Except for right now. Job-shop owners call me and ask me what to
do right now. I tell them that, if I knew, my phone number would be unlisted
and I'd be on the beach at Aruba.

Besides, you were being deliberately obtuse in your
exchange with the other Tom, weren't you? ;-)

It seemed appropriate for the circumstances. g


OBmetal: my new 7x12 is on a slow boat from China right now! :-)

Watch out for sand pockets in the castings. g And good luck with it.

Thanks -- I will. Based on what I've heard and read, I think I'll
take it apart completely, and clean and lube everything, before I
start using it. mini-lathe.com will be my friend! :-)

That sounds like a good approach. There's some decent iron down there
somewhere. Have fun.

Ed Huntress