Too_Many_Tools wrote in article
...
On Mar 11, 1:38*am, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"





wrote:

GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation.

Yay. *Way to go Ron. *Bring back the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs of the
1930s. *We can repeat history. *The financial leg of our economy is
already weakened by the mortgage mess. *Lets impose punitive tariffs
and take out another leg.

RWL

The Asians impose punitive tariffs on our goods and it doesn't seem to
have
hurt them at all. In fact, they are kicking our asses. Maybe if we had
brains we'd copy them. We would say we're all for free trade but then
have
protectionist policies just like Japan and China. We're not smart enough
to
do that though and will continue having our asses kicked. And we'll
complain
a lot.

Hawke

The fact is that most Asian countries import very little from the U.S.
But you are correct that there are high import duties in most asian
countries, with the exception of Singapore, where duties are so low
that it is effectively a duty free port.

The reason that they are "kicking our asses" is simply that they
manufacture goods at an attractive cost and thus "sell" more goods
then they need to "buy".

In Thailand for example, nearly all the imported goods are either raw
materials or luxury goods while they are the main manufacturer (world
wide) for Toyota and Isuzu pickups.

The real answer is that the U.S. has priced themselves out of the
world market.

Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What you are seeing there is the drug companies taking advantage of
the American consumers with the blessing of George Bush.

Someone has to pay for his kickbacks.

TMT

----------

So, you are saying that the Democrat-majority Congress is refusing to pass
any consumer protection bills in order to allow Bush to swing in the wind.

Or are you suggesting that Bush, somehow, holds a magic spell over Pelosi
and her posse?

Surely, you understand that the President alone cannot arbitrarily and
unilaterally pass laws.

That's grade-school civics.

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:18:27 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:


Example: Walmart, from all I read, became the largest retailer in the
world by selling cheap (mostly imported) goods. Assume that the
government proposers a law to add (lets say ) 300% import duty to
chinese made shirts so that they sell for the same price as a US made
shirt. What does WalMart think about that?

How much political power does a company like WalMart, and all the
other companies that have moved offshore, have? And how much would
they use that power in the next election? And what is the reaction of
any political party in the world to the news that the opposition is
going to have all the money in the world to contest the next election?

I don't think that whether it is the correct solution or not
isolation, or protective tariffs will work.



Companies like that have resources that the common man just can't
possibly match.

FOr instance, they can make significant campaign donations to BOTH
candidates, therby ensuring that they have the winner in their pocket.

I can't do that.

Can you?

Richard


I don;t make contributions to any of them.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:56:27 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

snip


In nearly all cases, I can buy a medicine cheaper here in Thailand
then in the U.S. and these are imported medicines. If they are made
locally it is about 1/10th the price.

Of course. You're larded with "compulsory licensing." That is, the Thai
government gives your pharma industry a license for pirating. d8-)

Sorry, incorrect. the Thai government is discussing the CL question
with one or two drug companies but there has been no decision.
According to the pharmaceutical department of Chulalongkorn University
(the most prestigious school in the country) all current drugs covered
by copyright or patent are imported from the makers, or their licensed
representatives. (they operate a extremely well stocked pharmacy in
the heart of Bangkok so they are easy to talk to).

Sorry again. Just after I posted the above I read the newspaper. It
appears that contrary to previous printed reports the government HAS
decided to allow the manufacture of patented medicines under a
"Compulsory Licensing" (CL) law.

The article goes o to say that the EU confirmed the legality of
Thailand's action and it was allowed by WTO rules.

I wouldn't believe *that* one, either. d8-)

This is not something that we want to get into, I think, unless you really
like getting tangled in the pharma business. CLs are a political hot potato,
but, by any definition, they're legalized piracy. Some people think the
piracy is OK. Most of us don't. When Thailand pirates a patent, we pay even
more in the US. This doesn't bother the EU, because they've already squeezed
their prices out with price controls so that the US is the only place one
can make up the loss.

If you want to hear a squeel, try renegotiating a drug price in France to
pay for a patent loss in Thailand, after France votes to allow the CL...ha!

--
Ed Huntress

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...

snip

I don;t know either but up until last week the paper said that the
government was considering action, but as I wrote in another post
today the paper announced that the Government Pharmaceutical
Organization was constructing a factory to make several drugs under
the CL laws (or agreements).

So much for "News" papers.

If they're the ones that also told you Thailand doesn't have price controls
on drugs, they're worth their weight in birdcage liners. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...

snip


What is not at all clear to me is why the belief persists that it
is somehow a "sin" against the "gods of the market," (and likely
to bring down their wrath) to introduce and enforce prophylactic
economic/financial measures such as "loan reserve requirements,"
FASB accounting standards, and the provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley,
but it is now generally religiously acceptable to introduce and
enforce public health measures such as the pure food and drug
laws, and compulsory immunizations. Indeed, anesthesia during
childbirth is now acceptable to most people.

Oh, it shouldn't be a surprise. As you say, economics and politics make a
sort of religious mix. Healthcare, on the other hand, is one of the very few
fields in which people have a gut recognition that markets don't always
work:

Doctor: "We have a good chance to save your life if we act quickly. The
operation will cost $20,000."

Patient: "Whoa, doc! That's 'way too pricey. I think I'll wait until prices
come down."

This is the little voice that tells us market forces aren't always the
answer.

What is urgently required (but will never happen) in the current
economic crunch is that a board of enquiry or inquest, with the
power to compel document production and testimony under oath, be
convened, and then the evidence to be sifted and evaluated on a
"zero based" no-prior-assumptions basis. Too many people already
"know" the answers, and even more are making money from the
situation for this to occur.

I think you're putting a lot of faith in the "board's" ability to make an
objective analysis. I have no such faith.

My son is in his sophomore year of acquiring a degree in economics. He's
already knocking me off some of my perches with what he's learning. I'm just
going to wait two more years and have him explain it all to me.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:46:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .

snip

I don;t know either but up until last week the paper said that the
government was considering action, but as I wrote in another post
today the paper announced that the Government Pharmaceutical
Organization was constructing a factory to make several drugs under
the CL laws (or agreements).

So much for "News" papers.

If they're the ones that also told you Thailand doesn't have price controls
on drugs, they're worth their weight in birdcage liners. d8-)


No, that was actually the Chulalongkorn University pharmacy department
people that told me that and I tend to believe them as from my own
experience prices vary between shops or in various provinces.

This is not to say that distributors don;t try to do some price fixing
though.

I do know, however, that there are some kind of control as some
medicines aren't sold in pharmacies. Fosamax 1 a week was one I
remember. The one a day tabs were sold in pharmacies but the one a
week weren't. you had to get them at a hospital.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:46:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..

snip

I don;t know either but up until last week the paper said that the
government was considering action, but as I wrote in another post
today the paper announced that the Government Pharmaceutical
Organization was constructing a factory to make several drugs under
the CL laws (or agreements).

So much for "News" papers.

If they're the ones that also told you Thailand doesn't have price
controls
on drugs, they're worth their weight in birdcage liners. d8-)


No, that was actually the Chulalongkorn University pharmacy department
people that told me that and I tend to believe them as from my own
experience prices vary between shops or in various provinces.

This is not to say that distributors don;t try to do some price fixing
though.

I do know, however, that there are some kind of control as some
medicines aren't sold in pharmacies. Fosamax 1 a week was one I
remember. The one a day tabs were sold in pharmacies but the one a
week weren't. you had to get them at a hospital.

Well, the word from the international pharma marketing sources is that
Thailand has price controls, but that they're basically too corrupt and
incompetent to enforce them very effectively. Only a few are enforced.

There are two agencies involved, and the Thai FDA appears to be the place
that politicians send their idiot nephews for high-paying jobs. Like most
smaller countries, Thailand just copies what's going on at the US FDA and
European FDAs, runs a pseudo research and "certification," and then
rubber-stamps what the big guys are doing. This keeps the revenue flowing
and avoids the problem of having to do anything that demands real effort.

We get cynical after a few years of working in the pharma business. But we
call it being realistic. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:05:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip

#5 -- It is increasingly apparent that Ricardo was a propagandist
for the UK during the Napoleonic wars. Because Napoleon was
imposing an early version of the EEC to promote trade and
industry within French Europe [the Continental system], the UK
naturally was all for free trade. If Napoleon had been for free
trade, I am sure Ricardo (or another flak) would have touted
"Imperial Preference" or some such. What is not clear is if
Ricardo actually believed his thesis, and was picked because this
was what the establishment wanted to hear, or if he determined
what the establishment wanted to hear, and wrote accordingly.
(Sound familiar?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_System
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=c...html&Itemid=27
Note that the country that Ricardo used as an example [Portugal
to export wine and import wool] is specifically mentioned as a
holdout against the Continental system.

#6 -- FWIW Economics and Astrology appear to be very similar.
They have an arcane vocabulary, bewildering mathematics, offer
convoluted explanations for past and future events, and are
worthless as a guide to practical actions. The practitioners are
highly paid and appear to have undue and unjustified influence in
society and government.

That's good, George, and it sounds right on many counts. So the next
question is, why in the hell do trade theorists still talk about it? As far
as I can see, it's a textbook thing that is, as an economist once said, the
one idea in economics that is both simple and profound. But it's meaningless
when they talk to us non-economists.

I think it clouds understanding of real trade issues. But then, I'm assuming
someone could clear them up if it weren't for these clouds. That may be a
delusion on my part.
===============
I think that on a conscious level #5 [propaganda] is a major
contributing factor. Even more dangerous is the sub-conscious
"cherry picking" of information to justify doing what you want to
do and your acquisition/possession of enormous wealth.

This is by no means unique to "economics," but includes other
areas such as sociology [e.g. The Bell Curve]

IMNSHO we have the flourishing of a secular religion, complete
with prophets and scriptures, arcane theology, and promoters from
the "pop" TV preachers [TV talk shows] to the pope [head of the
Fed]. As in most [all?] religions, the assumptions, tenets, etc.
*BY DEFINITION* are based on "matters of faith" and not "matters
of fact," and to complete this analogy we have repeated examples
of "human sacrifices" to "propitiate the gods of the market and
avoid their wrath."

The problem on the macro basis seems to be that no one examines
the data, and then comes to conclusions using accepted and proven
techniques, such as multiple regression or canonical analysis,
rather the opposite where the assumptions are made and the data
sifted/pencil-whipped to provide support and "evidence."

This is greatly amplified by what appears to be the case that the
increasingly complex macro economic structures/organizations are
not determinant but rather are random, much like the weather. To
be sure trends can be seen, such as it gets hot in the summer and
cold in the winter.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0465...pt#reader-link

What is not at all clear to me is why the belief persists that it
is somehow a "sin" against the "gods of the market," (and likely
to bring down their wrath) to introduce and enforce prophylactic
economic/financial measures such as "loan reserve requirements,"
FASB accounting standards, and the provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley,
but it is now generally religiously acceptable to introduce and
enforce public health measures such as the pure food and drug
laws, and compulsory immunizations. Indeed, anesthesia during
childbirth is now acceptable to most people.

On the micro level, the problem appears to be that people do not
[always] act logically/rationally. For example, Governor
Spitzer, proving once again that it is indeed possible to lose
your head over a little piece of tail….

What is urgently required (but will never happen) in the current
economic crunch is that a board of enquiry or inquest, with the
power to compel document production and testimony under oath, be
convened, and then the evidence to be sifted and evaluated on a
"zero based" no-prior-assumptions basis. Too many people already
"know" the answers, and even more are making money from the
situation for this to occur.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:47:48 -0500, "*" wrote:



Too_Many_Tools wrote in article
...

Actually the United States is becoming a third world country.

Remember the housing bust?

Its not really a bust, but a greatly over inflated balloon that popped

Our assets are depreciating quickly and there really is no end in
sight.

Mine arnt.

Then consider the national debt...the United States is technically
broke at this time and is selling assets to maintain the cash flow.

That happened in 1932

Note that it is happening under a Republican Administration.

TMT

----------


I believe the U.S. checkbook and Visa Card is under the control of Congress
- the majority of which is Democrats.

Shsssss! Dont confuse him with facts.

Gunner

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:51:49 -0500, "*" wrote:



Too_Many_Tools wrote in article
...
On Mar 11, 1:38*am, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"





wrote:

GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation.

Yay. *Way to go Ron. *Bring back the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs of the
1930s. *We can repeat history. *The financial leg of our economy is
already weakened by the mortgage mess. *Lets impose punitive tariffs
and take out another leg.

RWL

The Asians impose punitive tariffs on our goods and it doesn't seem to
have
hurt them at all. In fact, they are kicking our asses. Maybe if we had
brains we'd copy them. We would say we're all for free trade but then
have
protectionist policies just like Japan and China. We're not smart enough
to
do that though and will continue having our asses kicked. And we'll
complain
a lot.

Hawke

The fact is that most Asian countries import very little from the U.S.
But you are correct that there are high import duties in most asian
countries, with the exception of Singapore, where duties are so low
that it is effectively a duty free port.

The reason that they are "kicking our asses" is simply that they
manufacture goods at an attractive cost and thus "sell" more goods
then they need to "buy".

In Thailand for example, nearly all the imported goods are either raw
materials or luxury goods while they are the main manufacturer (world
wide) for Toyota and Isuzu pickups.

The real answer is that the U.S. has priced themselves out of the
world market.

Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What you are seeing there is the drug companies taking advantage of
the American consumers with the blessing of George Bush.

Someone has to pay for his kickbacks.

TMT

----------

So, you are saying that the Democrat-majority Congress is refusing to pass
any consumer protection bills in order to allow Bush to swing in the wind.

Or are you suggesting that Bush, somehow, holds a magic spell over Pelosi
and her posse?

Surely, you understand that the President alone cannot arbitrarily and
unilaterally pass laws.

That's grade-school civics.


Why do I get the feeling he wont answer those questions?

Gunner

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:04:20 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:
snip
This is greatly amplified by what appears to be the case that the
increasingly complex macro economic structures/organizations are
not determinant but rather are random, much like the weather. To
be sure trends can be seen, such as it gets hot in the summer and
cold in the winter.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0465...pt#reader-link

What is not at all clear to me is why the belief persists that it
is somehow a "sin" against the "gods of the market," (and likely
to bring down their wrath) to introduce and enforce prophylactic
economic/financial measures such as "loan reserve requirements,"
FASB accounting standards, and the provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley,
but it is now generally religiously acceptable to introduce and
enforce public health measures such as the pure food and drug
laws, and compulsory immunizations. Indeed, anesthesia during
childbirth is now acceptable to most people.
snip
==============
A follow-up to my follow-up.

The "masters of the universe," have just done it again, by
assuming they could predict/control random events.

In spite of the best economics advice and political clout that
money could by, Carlyle Capital Corporation, the hedge fund
subsidiary of the Carlyle Group, is in default/bankruptcy,
despite owning 16.6 [others articles indicate 21.7] billion $US
of AAA rated GSE [US government sponsored enterprise] bonds.

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/opening..._hedgefu_1.php
The hedge fund Carlyle Capital all but collapsed last night,
stunning investors with the speed of its fall from being one of
the biggest-name investment vehicles spawned by the late credit
bubble to its latest victim.

Bloomberg reports the public company said late Wednesday it has
defaulted on $16.6 billion in debt after its banks withdrew their
money from the fund. Carlyle’s pleas to its lenders failed to
prevent them from issuing margin calls (requirements to put up
more collateral for investment loans) because of the plunging
value of Carlyle’s investments, which spiraled uncontrollably
until it wiped out all of the company’s cash.
snip
As if to prove Bundy right, three more hedge funds shut down or
blocked investors from withdrawing their money in the last
twenty-four hours or so, the FT reports. Drake Management, which
has $12 billion in assets, said it would allow investors to vote
on liquidating three of its hedge funds after more than half
tried to withdraw their money. A $900 million Amsterdam hedge
fund called Global Opportunities Capital shut down investor
withdrawals for a year, and Blue River Asset Management of
Colorado also shut down.
===========
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/...uNZ3_W2yBh IF

The Japanese CDS [credit debt swap] derivative market is going
bananas.
http://www.reuters.com/article/bonds...29439820080313

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bcd05360-f...0779fd2ac.html
snip
In a normal world or in a world where the derivative is closely
tied to the underlying cash security, if the price of the
derivative became utterly divorced, market operators would step
in to trade away the difference, Mr Fisher adds.

But volumes in the credit derivatives market exploded precisely
because most of the bonds hardly trade at all. At Goldman Sachs,
for example, for every three dollars of trading in bonds, the
firm trades $97 in credit default swaps.
snip
===========

The dollar worth less than 100 yen, oil over 110$US/bbl and gold
over 1,000$/ounce
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/...Ce1bhmI1iyBhIF

And these are the people that want to dictate how the US economy
operates.....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:39:41 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .

snip


What is not at all clear to me is why the belief persists that it
is somehow a "sin" against the "gods of the market," (and likely
to bring down their wrath) to introduce and enforce prophylactic
economic/financial measures such as "loan reserve requirements,"
FASB accounting standards, and the provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley,
but it is now generally religiously acceptable to introduce and
enforce public health measures such as the pure food and drug
laws, and compulsory immunizations. Indeed, anesthesia during
childbirth is now acceptable to most people.

Oh, it shouldn't be a surprise. As you say, economics and politics make a
sort of religious mix. Healthcare, on the other hand, is one of the very few
fields in which people have a gut recognition that markets don't always
work:

Doctor: "We have a good chance to save your life if we act quickly. The
operation will cost $20,000."

Patient: "Whoa, doc! That's 'way too pricey. I think I'll wait until prices
come down."

This is the little voice that tells us market forces aren't always the
answer.
================
That's what HMOs are for......

What is urgently required (but will never happen) in the current
economic crunch is that a board of enquiry or inquest, with the
power to compel document production and testimony under oath, be
convened, and then the evidence to be sifted and evaluated on a
"zero based" no-prior-assumptions basis. Too many people already
"know" the answers, and even more are making money from the
situation for this to occur.

I think you're putting a lot of faith in the "board's" ability to make an
objective analysis. I have no such faith.
===================
Indeed, especially if such a board or panel is packed with the
usual political hacks and ideologues. What I was interested in
was the data and documentation for independent research, much as
the link between asbestos and tobacco with lung cancer was
established. That said, there is no reason that independent
accountants, actuaries, demographers, statisticians, corporate
governance specialists, etc. (possibly not from the United
States) could not provide at least some basic insights into what
has gone and is going wrong. Even if such an "inquest" is held,
and the "correct" conclusions drawn, if remedial actions are not
implemented and enforced, the boom and bust will continue.

What is clear is that without such a review we will repeat this
boom/bust cycle until we join Spain, the Netherlands, France, and
the UK in the history books as another failed "great power."

My son is in his sophomore year of acquiring a degree in economics. He's
already knocking me off some of my perches with what he's learning. I'm just
going to wait two more years and have him explain it all to me.

Do it quickly, while the answers he learns are still correct ....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:43:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..

In closing, this subject is spreading rapidly. If we don;t stop we
will be into scientology or illegal immigrants if we aren't careful
(probably also impossible to solve subjects). I suggest that we either
end or chop it up in pieces to cover one subject each.

Ok. Here's my one subject: The idea that costs in the US are too high is a
case of looking at things from the wrong end of the telescope. The fact is
that our costs are based on an equilibrium established when there was
little
foreign competition. There is only one fundamental reason it couldn't be
sustained, and that would be if there was something structurally
unsustainable about isolating ourselves from low-wage competition, in a
limited and selective way, and it cut us out of too many export markets as
well. The only model for this in recent times is Europe, which
self-destroyed its small-computer production capabilities by isolating
itself through tariffs at a crucial time; but which, on the other hand,
did
the same thing with its car market, limiting Japanese imports to 10%
market
share, for example, and actually stimulated its domestic producers in the
process -- producers that are now on top of the world in terms of quality
of
product and demand.

I suppose it is really a matter of where you are looking from. From
the purchaser's point of view cheap is better. But from a structural
point of view you are correct. My question is whether the U.S. public
and more important the companies who took advantage of NAFTA or the
free trade or most favored trading partner agreements that the
government agreed to and now discover that their goods are going to
have a big penality applied to them are going to stand for it.

That's going to depend on how much they have to stand for. It also depends
upon how they, collectively, link jobs and industrial prosperity to
controlling trade. If they think it's necessary to save jobs and/or to cut
our government debt load, they'll probably go along.

You're probably aware that the cost-advantage margins in most products
imported here from Asia are not nearly as great as the disparity in incomes
and costs. Some, however, are quite high: high-volume consumer goods can
sell for less than 50% of their price if made in the US, Europe, or Japan.

Overall, though, the advantages rarely exceed 30% and they're falling, as
the US dollar's value falls and as China eases up its controls on its
currency, the gap may tighten. Some economists and politicians are counting
on it to solve our problem.

A few years ago I wrote a series of three 5,000-word articles on trade, two
of them exclusively about China, and I spent almost a year researching the
three. One thing I learned then disturbs me now: the prices on goods from
China are artificially high, and have an enormous amount of room on the
downside for re-adjustment, should it become necessary for them. I don't
know how that situation is viewed now, by the people who really know those
things, but I doubt if it has changed. This suggests to me that small
changes at the margins are not going to result in a qualitative change in
our trade situation. Without that, we have to find another way to get out of
the debt-financed economy we're in, and I have no idea what the prospects
are for that.


Example: Walmart, from all I read, became the largest retailer in the
world by selling cheap (mostly imported) goods. Assume that the
government proposers a law to add (lets say ) 300% import duty to
chinese made shirts so that they sell for the same price as a US made
shirt. What does WalMart think about that?

Wal-Mart, as you may know, is not very well liked by many segments of the
American population, so they may find that their political throw-weight is
not that great, if the public perceives they're working against our overall
interests. But I don't see 300% duties in any case. I see "voluntary
restrictions," then quotas, and then tariffs -- fairly modest ones. That is,
if it's necessary. If the dollar keeps dropping, it won't be. d8-)


How much political power does a company like WalMart, and all the
other companies that have moved offshore, have?

Collectively, quite a lot. Individually, they'd be vulnerable.

And how much would
they use that power in the next election?

All they could. But it would be reported all over the place. If they got too
rough their reputations would go to hell.

And what is the reaction of
any political party in the world to the news that the opposition is
going to have all the money in the world to contest the next election?

New election-finance laws.


I don't think that whether it is the correct solution or not
isolation, or protective tariffs will work.

Well, they'd certainly work, in the sense that we could limit the growth of
our deficit. Whether they would produce a desirable result is another
question altogether. We could easily wind up killing our economy in the
process if it simultaneously killed our exports, which is a real risk.

Protectionism in this age has real limitations for a highly developed
country. The only place it seems to be relatively invulnerable is in
agriculture, and that's under serious fire everywhere.

Reagan used limited protections to good effect. It was one of the brighter
spots in his economic management. I visualize something like that happening
again.

snip

--
Ed Huntress

So we're toying with the idea of selective protectionism; a dangerous idea
but one that may be the only way to deal with it. A lot would depend on
how
Europe and Japan react to the same pressures. The idea would not be to
keep
our industries in a hothouse but rather to slow down the pace of change to
something that we could deal with.

You mean something like managing our trade rather than just letting the
chips fall where they may? You mean we decide what industries we want to
keep for the good of the country and figure out what we are willing to do to
keep them healthy? We might even plan which areas we want to allow free
trade to operate in and which areas that we think that would be a bad idea
for the majority of Americans. In other words a system that is not free
trade.



To me, that's the key long-term economic issue we face. Most of what's
going
on now in financial markets has little to do with it, and will play itself
out regardless of it. The question is how much damage we can afford to
sustain for the sake of an economic theory that has never, in reality,
been
tried befo free trade.

Free trade is like the honor system, it's a game where if everyone plays by
the rules some get ahead but the majority get the shaft. With a game like
that is it any wonder why nobody is playing by free market rules? There are
just too many losers in real free trade for very many to want to play that
game. The fact is the US was able to win the global economic competition
game for many years, so we loved it. But now others are coming up to compete
with us and they are actually beating us, say, like the Japanese automakers
are destroying the American ones. Now if we played by the free trade, free
competition rules we will lose that industry just like we lost consumer
electronics and several others. Do we want to let our automakers be
destroyed in the global market or do we want to fix the game just enough so
that we can keep playing?

That's what it is all about, staying in the game economically. Those
countries that want to keep industries protect them and the countries that
don't want to keep them don't. Free trade is simply global competition for
business. If there are no barriers it will be just like free market
capitalism everywhere. There will be a few big winners and a lot of losers.
That is the outcome of free market capitalism everywhere it's been tried.
Whether it's Standard Oil, Wal-Mart, or the old AT&T, free market
competition winds up with a monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly and all the
other competitors are put out of business. A great example of this is the
American car market. Eighty years ago there were over 100 car manufacturers
in the US. Eventually, there were three. That is what happens in a free
market and when you expand that market to include the whole world you will
get the same thing. All the countries know this and that's why they don't
want to play free market capitalism unless they believe they are one of the
few countries that can come out on top. Most of them know they won't so they
protect what they want to keep. Except for us. Because of the free market
utopians in charge here we've allowed our markets to become too open to
unfair competition, and now we've got the worst trade deficits in the world.
When something like free trade isn't working for you it's time to go with
what does. The successful countries all use protectionism in one form or
another. As soon as we start using the same tactics the sooner our trade
deficit will start coming down, and probably the dollar will start going
back up. Free trade has been a bust for us except for a lucky few. It's time
to go back to what all of our competitors are using; protection for the
industries that are critical for the welfare of our nation. Which is
something we should have done years ago but with republicans in charge that
wasn't possible. If we can get rid of them maybe we can make the changes
necessary to turn things around. I think we all know where we're going to be
if we keep doing things like we have during Bush's term in office.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


So we're toying with the idea of selective protectionism; a dangerous
idea
but one that may be the only way to deal with it. A lot would depend on
how
Europe and Japan react to the same pressures. The idea would not be to
keep
our industries in a hothouse but rather to slow down the pace of change
to
something that we could deal with.

You mean something like managing our trade rather than just letting the
chips fall where they may?

Yes, gently, and carefully.

You mean we decide what industries we want to
keep for the good of the country and figure out what we are willing to do
to
keep them healthy?

Absolutely not. If you need a cautionary tale regarding "industrial policy,"
look to Japan's MITI and how they blew up Japan's chip business. And MITI is
one hell of a lot better at it than anything we're likely to paste together.

We might even plan which areas we want to allow free
trade to operate in and which areas that we think that would be a bad idea
for the majority of Americans. In other words a system that is not free
trade.

The idea is to limit the *velocity* of change, not its magnitude. You can
give an industry and the people who work for it some time to adjust, in a
world in which an industry can be devastated in a couple of years, but if
you hothouse that industry, you're soon going to have a useless, bloated,
and noncompetitive clunker of an industry.



To me, that's the key long-term economic issue we face. Most of what's
going
on now in financial markets has little to do with it, and will play
itself
out regardless of it. The question is how much damage we can afford to
sustain for the sake of an economic theory that has never, in reality,
been
tried befo free trade.

Free trade is like the honor system, it's a game where if everyone plays
by
the rules some get ahead but the majority get the shaft. With a game like
that is it any wonder why nobody is playing by free market rules? There
are
just too many losers in real free trade for very many to want to play that
game. The fact is the US was able to win the global economic competition
game for many years, so we loved it. But now others are coming up to
compete
with us and they are actually beating us, say, like the Japanese
automakers
are destroying the American ones. Now if we played by the free trade, free
competition rules we will lose that industry just like we lost consumer
electronics and several others. Do we want to let our automakers be
destroyed in the global market or do we want to fix the game just enough
so
that we can keep playing?

I think what we want is for the Japanese automakers to become more American
than Japanese. And that seems to be what's happening. d8-)

That's what it is all about, staying in the game economically. Those
countries that want to keep industries protect them and the countries that
don't want to keep them don't.

Hmm. When was the last time you saw a French car in the US? Protecting is
usually bad. Giving a temporary shield, a delaying tactic, may sometimes be
good. It's not easy to do to good effect, and it rarely is. But sometimes
it's necessary.

Free trade is simply global competition for
business. If there are no barriers it will be just like free market
capitalism everywhere. There will be a few big winners and a lot of
losers.
That is the outcome of free market capitalism everywhere it's been tried.
Whether it's Standard Oil, Wal-Mart, or the old AT&T, free market
competition winds up with a monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly and all the
other competitors are put out of business. A great example of this is the
American car market. Eighty years ago there were over 100 car
manufacturers
in the US. Eventually, there were three. That is what happens in a free
market and when you expand that market to include the whole world you will
get the same thing. All the countries know this and that's why they don't
want to play free market capitalism unless they believe they are one of
the
few countries that can come out on top. Most of them know they won't so
they
protect what they want to keep. Except for us. Because of the free market
utopians in charge here we've allowed our markets to become too open to
unfair competition, and now we've got the worst trade deficits in the
world.
When something like free trade isn't working for you it's time to go with
what does. The successful countries all use protectionism in one form or
another. As soon as we start using the same tactics the sooner our trade
deficit will start coming down, and probably the dollar will start going
back up. Free trade has been a bust for us except for a lucky few. It's
time
to go back to what all of our competitors are using; protection for the
industries that are critical for the welfare of our nation. Which is
something we should have done years ago but with republicans in charge
that
wasn't possible. If we can get rid of them maybe we can make the changes
necessary to turn things around. I think we all know where we're going to
be
if we keep doing things like we have during Bush's term in office.

That kind of thinking is what may cause me to vote for McCain. If you're
going to tamper with markets, you'd better be damned sure of what you're
doing. What others are doing is of little help to us in deciding what *we*
should do. We can't be mercantilists like the Chinese or the Asian Tigers.
Europe is not a model we would accept. Japan has run out of gas and they're
no shining example.

We need trade but we need something cautious, backed by a more conservative
monetary policy and a more balanced fiscal policy. Trade will have to be
slowed down for a while. We have to re-invest in infrastructure. That means
a willingness to accept some real pain to get things back on track.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:01:20 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:43:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


A few years ago I wrote a series of three 5,000-word articles on trade, two
of them exclusively about China, and I spent almost a year researching the
three. One thing I learned then disturbs me now: the prices on goods from
China are artificially high, and have an enormous amount of room on the
downside for re-adjustment, should it become necessary for them. I don't
know how that situation is viewed now, by the people who really know those
things, but I doubt if it has changed. This suggests to me that small
changes at the margins are not going to result in a qualitative change in
our trade situation. Without that, we have to find another way to get out of
the debt-financed economy we're in, and I have no idea what the prospects
are for that.


Based on living in Asia for some forty years and being married into a
fairly extensive family of Thai Chinese I can say that the economic
theory driving the Chinese is "sell it but get the most you can for
it". Normally prices are determined by how much the buyer will pay
So I would assume that current Chinese prices are somewhat higher then
the rock bottom, can't sell it for that, price. One way to prove, or
disprove that thesis would be to track Harbor Freight prices with an
allowance for increases in container shipping costs. I don't know, but
I suspect that the dollar price will stay about the same as before the
fall of the dollar.

What appears, from this distance, to ba the largest problem is the
transfer of basic industries to overseas sources. CNC machines, for
example. do they make any in the U.S. ? Where does iron and steel come
from these days? Even when I still lived there the Japanese were
selling steel, FAS San Diag o for less then Lone Star Steel could
produce it.

One of the biggest problems is that it is so easy to see what is wrong
but so difficult to offer a solution that is acceptable to, even the
ones most effected.

Tell Ohio that the answer is to cut taxes, give a 5 year moratorium on
business taxes, guarantee a maximum wage and a compliant labor force
and offer cheap power and see what they say. But Singapore did exactly
that.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:22:27 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:
snip
You mean something like managing our trade rather than just letting the
chips fall where they may? You mean we decide what industries we want to
keep for the good of the country and figure out what we are willing to do to
keep them healthy? We might even plan which areas we want to allow free
trade to operate in and which areas that we think that would be a bad idea
for the majority of Americans. In other words a system that is not free
trade.
=============
The major problem with attempting to target economic segments for
protection/growth is that this leads to "crony capitalism," where
the selection is based on political influence, prestige, greed,
etc. and not actual need. Indeed, "need" has different meanings
according to your perceptions of the world, and even an honest
evaluation/prioritization by one group will be inane from the
perspective of another group.

Historically this policy was called mercantilism and arose in
parallel with the nation-state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
This seemed to be correct (operational) for a while, but then the
assumption that the amount of international trade was "fixed"
became increasingly incorrect.

This was replaced with a later form called neo-mercantilism, as
opposed to the "free trade" (Ricardo) of the UK. The economies
of both the Kaiser's Germany and the United States could be
described as neo-mercantile, and in the US case with a fair bit
of isolationism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomercantilism
Historically this seems to have been quite successful in the
aggregate for the countries involved, albeit at considerable cost
to other countries.

Note that "free trade" is an illusion in that only the
dominant/hegemon power [the UK then, the US now] and their
clients benefits from "free trade," This is an illusion because
operationally this is neo-mercantilism and because of the huge
arms races and military/industrial complex, it verges on
classical mercantilism. A characteristic is the practice of
denominating the majority of international trade in the hegemon's
currency, even between two other countries. The illusion of
"free trade" collapses when the underlying neo-mercantilism
collapses when hegemony is lost, either through a military
defeat, economic stagnation, failed financial speculation,
political degeneration, or a simple failure to adapt to changing
circumstances.

Many countries are now practicing "industrial mercantilism" or
more broadly "techno-industrial mercantilism," with varying
degrees of success. In the more successful versions of this,
the central planning agencies are insuring not only
techno-industrial "success" but are also implementing common
sense actions to preserve the national existence such as securing
an adequate internal food supply (possibly beans, beans, and more
beans, with imports in the up cycle), and adequate affordable
medical care for the people. Note that this is not autarky, but
rational contingency planning.

A major problem is that of the "wolf in sheep's clothing," where
a trans-national corporation pretends to be a national
corporation (as they may have been at one time) to obtain tax and
duty preferences, but then evades the actions and restrictions
that a truly national corporation would exhibit. This is
particularly true in the financial areas, where available capital
is reinvested outside the nation. This can be encapsulated
neatly in the [no longer operational] syllogism "When American
corporations do well, American does well, and when America does
well, Americans do well." The problem being there are no more
American corporations, only trans-national corporations, which
were American at one time, which are still domiciled in America.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:52:30 -0800, "Jim Insolo"
wrote:

This whole discussion sounds like a bunch of buggy whip makers in 1903
===========
How about the coffee shop in November 1929?

Huge raids on the federal treasury [i.e. the taxpayers] starts.
See below for the gory details.

To locate your representative and to use their web mail click on
http://www.house.gov/
Be sure to bookmark this and your representative's web-mail site

To locate your senators and to use their web mail click on
http://senate.gov/
Be sure to bookmark this site and your senators' web-mail sites.

Feel free to use any or all of the following email I just sent to
my Senators and Representative. The money you save may be your
own...

============
Not only no -- but HELL NO! -- A THOUSAND TIME NO!!

It is sickening (but expected) to see the same individuals that
vehemently opposed Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, and
WIC [Women's, Infant's and Children's] food programs, now first
in line at the Federal money trough. These individuals are also
the ones directly responsible for the financial implosion
currently sweeping the economy, and to a large degree the
elimination of the U.S. Dollar as a reserve currency.

These are the same "masters of the universe" that bitterly
opposed and evaded reasonable regulation such as prudent loan
reserve requirements and accountability efforts such as
Sarbanes-Oxley, which if enforced would have at least contained
if not prevented many of their problems

Bear-Stearns is simply the first in a long, long line of "high
roller" institutions including brokers, banks, private equity
funds, and hedge fund that are insolvent and desperately need
money.

While the bonds and other obligations/guarantees covered by the
"full faith and credit of the United States," must be protected,
there is no logical, moral or ethical reason that the
organizations and individuals responsible for the current debacle
should be rescued to repeat their market manipulation and
speculation activities resulting in yet another disaster.

NONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS OR INSTITUTIONS SHOULD GET EVEN A
SINGLE DIME OF TAX PAYER FUNDS.

I suggest the following when any of these "tin cup" organizations
enters receivership:

(1) All existing officers and directors should be removed, and
their offices and records are sealed, including emails.

(2) All bank accounts should be frozen, existing signature
authority over checking accounts rescinded, and all company
credit cards revoked.

(3) All company assets such as laptop computers and proprietary
software should be inventoried and secured, and removal must be
prevented.

(4) A bankruptcy administrator with RICO experience should be
appointed to liquidate all operations with-in 180 days, with all
records made available to the appropriate enforcement and
regulatory agencies such as the SEC, FBI, IRS, etc. for possible
criminal prosecution.

(5) All existing employment contracts should be voided, and all
deferred compensation and undistributed bonuses are at least
sequestered.

(6) All executive and director pension plans should be voided,
the assets transferred to the PBGC, and any recipients are paid
by the PBGC according to the established schedule. Any company
paid "trust funds" or annuities benefiting officers or directors
should be sequestered

(7) Compensation or guarantee payments are made from the
"bottom up," that is the small investors and creditors are paid
first.

The news items that caused this email to be sent include:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/...ZgQp8fSyBhI F
Fed pledges to supply cash
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - The Federal Reserve invoked a rarely used
Depression-era procedure Friday to bolster troubled Bear Stearns
Cos. and said it will provide even more help to combat a serious
credit crisis.
snip
Senior Federal Reserve staffers said the arrangement allows JP
Morgan Chase to borrow from the Fed's discount window and put up
collateral from Bear Stearns to back up the loans. JP Morgan, a
bank, has access to the discount window to obtain direct loans
from the Fed, but Bear Stearns, an investment house, does not.
This type of procedure, Fed officials said, dates back to the
Great Depression of the 1930s but has rarely been used since that
time.
===========



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/...ItkyEeLZGs0NUE

Bear Stearns bailed out by Fed, J. P. Morgan
By STEPHEN BERNARD, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK - Bear Stearns Cos., one of Wall Street's venerable
investment banks, received a bailout Friday by the federal
government and JPMorgan Chase & Co. in a surprise, last-ditch
effort to save the 86-year old institution.

The Federal Reserve responded swiftly to pleas from Bear Stearns
that its coffers had "significantly deteriorated" within a
24-hour period. Central bankers backed an arrangement to bolster
the company, and stood ready to provide extra resources to combat
a credit crisis that now threatens one of America's biggest
financial institutions.
Bear Stearns, the nation's fifth-largest investment bank, made
its fortune dealing in opaque mortgage-backed securities - a
strategy that might be its undoing amid the worst housing slump
in a quarter century. The bank has racked up $2.75 billion in
write-downs since last year, and faced a possible collapse
without some kind of lifeline.
Bear Stearns lost half of its value within 30 minutes of the
market open, before clawing back a bit to be down 41 percent, or
$23.51, at $33.49 by midday. The news rattled investors, pushing
the Dow Jones industrial average down about 150 points.
==========


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation.

Yay. Way to go Ron. Bring back the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs of the
1930s. We can repeat history. The financial leg of our economy is
already weakened by the mortgage mess. Lets impose punitive tariffs
and take out another leg.

RWL

The Asians impose punitive tariffs on our goods and it doesn't seem to
have
hurt them at all. In fact, they are kicking our asses. Maybe if we had
brains we'd copy them. We would say we're all for free trade but then
have
protectionist policies just like Japan and China. We're not smart
enough
to
do that though and will continue having our asses kicked. And we'll
complain
a lot.

Hawke

The fact is that most Asian countries import very little from the U.S.
But you are correct that there are high import duties in most asian
countries, with the exception of Singapore, where duties are so low
that it is effectively a duty free port.

The reason that they are "kicking our asses" is simply that they
manufacture goods at an attractive cost and thus "sell" more goods
then they need to "buy".

In Thailand for example, nearly all the imported goods are either raw
materials or luxury goods while they are the main manufacturer (world
wide) for Toyota and Isuzu pickups.

The real answer is that the U.S. has priced themselves out of the
world market.

Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What you are seeing there is the drug companies taking advantage of
the American consumers with the blessing of George Bush.

Someone has to pay for his kickbacks.

TMT

----------

I'll answer your questions for you.

So, you are saying that the Democrat-majority Congress is refusing to
pass
any consumer protection bills in order to allow Bush to swing in the
wind.

No, because that's wrong. Simple majorities in Congress don't mean one has
control over which bills get passed and which ones don't. Unless a party has
a super majority where it can pass anything it likes even when the other
party opposes it, like the republicans had for 8 years, it has to reach
compromises with the opposition to pass anything. So the Democrats can't
simply pass any bill they want. They must have republican support.
Republicans don't support anything Pelosi wants to pass. That means the
Congress isn't refusing to pass any consumer protection bills. It means the
republican opposition is rufusing to let any Democratic bill to pass. So
it's your guys who are obstructing the passage of any bill. That means the
Democrats aren't doing anything, except trying to pass laws that benefit the
public.



Or are you suggesting that Bush, somehow, holds a magic spell over Pelosi
and her posse?

Not a magic spell but a veto and a big enough republican minority to prevent
her from accomplishing anything. With those in hand he has enough political
power to stop her from passing bills or forces her to compromise in ways she
doesn't want to do. So it's not magic it's a matter of having political
power. Republicans use that power on a daily basis to stop Democrats and to
stop anything that will help regular people. Like you.


Surely, you understand that the President alone cannot arbitrarily and
unilaterally pass laws.

We all know that, even you, I think. But the ability to stop laws from
passing is almost as good a power as being able to pass laws. He can veto
and Democratic legislation and with his party backing him up it sticks. But
not only can he veto he can pass signing statements saying what part of the
laws he will follow, and he can enact what amounts to law with executive
orders. He also can send the military anywhere he wants without
congressional approval for 90 days. All in all, that gives him beaucoup
power. But the power to pass laws by himself, no. But we all knew that so
why ask such a dumb question?

That's grade-school civics.

Which is why even you can understand it, but barely.

Hawke

You mean something like managing our trade rather than just letting the
chips fall where they may?

Yes, gently, and carefully.

Okay, I take that as a yes.

You mean we decide what industries we want to
keep for the good of the country and figure out what we are willing to
do
to
keep them healthy?

Absolutely not. If you need a cautionary tale regarding "industrial
policy,"
look to Japan's MITI and how they blew up Japan's chip business. And MITI
is
one hell of a lot better at it than anything we're likely to paste
together.

Not a yes. But just because someone tried something and screwed it up
doesn't mean they shouldn't have tried. And I'm not so sure we couldn't do
better than the Japanese. Maybe, maybe not. But I think that is the
direction we need to head in. You can be cautious, which is probably a wise
thing to do.


We might even plan which areas we want to allow free
trade to operate in and which areas that we think that would be a bad
idea
for the majority of Americans. In other words a system that is not free
trade.

The idea is to limit the *velocity* of change, not its magnitude. You can
give an industry and the people who work for it some time to adjust, in a
world in which an industry can be devastated in a couple of years, but if
you hothouse that industry, you're soon going to have a useless, bloated,
and noncompetitive clunker of an industry.

That may be true but sometimes you need to keep an industry for other
reasons. Take steel. Say we are not competitive in the free market sense and
we let the industry go to where it can be done better and cheaper. But now
we have no access to steel, which we may need in a war. How would it be if
we needed steel from China but that is who we go to war with. We'd be
screwed. So there are some industries a country may want to keep even though
they don't do as well as others. Japan shouldn't be growning rice at all but
they are protecting that market so the local farmers can stay in business
even though they can't compete in a global market. Now rice isn't steel but
the point is the same. For whatever reason the country may want to keep an
industry even if it's a bloated, useless, and noncompetitive clunker. We
should be making the choice not leaving it to the "market".




To me, that's the key long-term economic issue we face. Most of what's
going
on now in financial markets has little to do with it, and will play
itself
out regardless of it. The question is how much damage we can afford to
sustain for the sake of an economic theory that has never, in reality,
been
tried befo free trade.

Free trade is like the honor system, it's a game where if everyone plays
by
the rules some get ahead but the majority get the shaft. With a game
like
that is it any wonder why nobody is playing by free market rules? There
are
just too many losers in real free trade for very many to want to play
that
game. The fact is the US was able to win the global economic competition
game for many years, so we loved it. But now others are coming up to
compete
with us and they are actually beating us, say, like the Japanese
automakers
are destroying the American ones. Now if we played by the free trade,
free
competition rules we will lose that industry just like we lost consumer
electronics and several others. Do we want to let our automakers be
destroyed in the global market or do we want to fix the game just enough
so
that we can keep playing?

I think what we want is for the Japanese automakers to become more
American
than Japanese. And that seems to be what's happening. d8-)

70% of the cars they sell in the US are made here right now. That means they
are made by Americans, in America, and sold to Americans. Sounds pretty
American like to me. Looks like the only thing that isn't American is the
people running the business, which pretty much shoots to hell the idea that
Americans are the best at running a business.


That's what it is all about, staying in the game economically. Those
countries that want to keep industries protect them and the countries
that
don't want to keep them don't.

Hmm. When was the last time you saw a French car in the US? Protecting is
usually bad. Giving a temporary shield, a delaying tactic, may sometimes
be
good. It's not easy to do to good effect, and it rarely is. But sometimes
it's necessary.

Since I've never seen a French car that I wanted to buy that's kind of
beside the point. Maybe there aren't any is because we don't want them? I
don't know what the deal is between the US and France regarding autos but I
assume they are protecting their manufacturers and we are retaliating by not
allowing them to be sold here. But if nobody wants them we're not hurting
them much. If I remember Peugeot and Citroen were always garbage. They
probably wouldn't sell anywhere but in France anyway. But we agree sometimes
protection is a good thing. The only question then is when and how much.


Free trade is simply global competition for
business. If there are no barriers it will be just like free market
capitalism everywhere. There will be a few big winners and a lot of
losers.
That is the outcome of free market capitalism everywhere it's been
tried.
Whether it's Standard Oil, Wal-Mart, or the old AT&T, free market
competition winds up with a monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly and all the
other competitors are put out of business. A great example of this is
the
American car market. Eighty years ago there were over 100 car
manufacturers
in the US. Eventually, there were three. That is what happens in a free
market and when you expand that market to include the whole world you
will
get the same thing. All the countries know this and that's why they
don't
want to play free market capitalism unless they believe they are one of
the
few countries that can come out on top. Most of them know they won't so
they
protect what they want to keep. Except for us. Because of the free
market
utopians in charge here we've allowed our markets to become too open to
unfair competition, and now we've got the worst trade deficits in the
world.
When something like free trade isn't working for you it's time to go
with
what does. The successful countries all use protectionism in one form or
another. As soon as we start using the same tactics the sooner our trade
deficit will start coming down, and probably the dollar will start going
back up. Free trade has been a bust for us except for a lucky few. It's
time
to go back to what all of our competitors are using; protection for the
industries that are critical for the welfare of our nation. Which is
something we should have done years ago but with republicans in charge
that
wasn't possible. If we can get rid of them maybe we can make the changes
necessary to turn things around. I think we all know where we're going
to
be
if we keep doing things like we have during Bush's term in office.

That kind of thinking is what may cause me to vote for McCain. If you're
going to tamper with markets, you'd better be damned sure of what you're
doing. What others are doing is of little help to us in deciding what *we*
should do. We can't be mercantilists like the Chinese or the Asian Tigers.
Europe is not a model we would accept. Japan has run out of gas and
they're
no shining example.

I'm pretty sure you'd vote for McCain despite anything I did. Old habits die
hard. If you're a conservative they never do. Unless some change is forced
you will continue to repeat the same pattern. That's unfortunate because
it's so anti intellectual. The idea is that you don't "tamper" with markets.
You protect what you think is in the national interest to keep or to stop
other nations from damaging you. Sure, you can go overboard and mess things
up but this is one area where being conservative is a plus. It's like
grinding. You can always take away but once you grind it off you can't put
it back on. So going slow and cautious is the way to do it.



We need trade but we need something cautious, backed by a more
conservative
monetary policy and a more balanced fiscal policy. Trade will have to be
slowed down for a while. We have to re-invest in infrastructure. That
means
a willingness to accept some real pain to get things back on track.


Pain will be necessary because of the excesses and mistakes already made.
Corrections usually hurt. But we have to get back on track and that means
putting people in charge who don't believe in unfettered free markets. They
are the ones who got us in this mess. Trade needs to be balanced and some
protection will help. We really need a whole new policy in this area and we
have to be honest and not go with the ideologues. We need to examine what
isn't working and change it and we need to see what is working and expand in
those areas. It's really just a matter of replacing incompetent managers
with competent ones. There are some good people out there, they're just not
working for us right now.


Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
You mean something like managing our trade rather than just letting the
chips fall where they may?

Yes, gently, and carefully.

Okay, I take that as a yes.

You mean we decide what industries we want to
keep for the good of the country and figure out what we are willing to
do
to
keep them healthy?

Absolutely not. If you need a cautionary tale regarding "industrial
policy,"
look to Japan's MITI and how they blew up Japan's chip business. And MITI
is
one hell of a lot better at it than anything we're likely to paste
together.

Not a yes. But just because someone tried something and screwed it up
doesn't mean they shouldn't have tried. And I'm not so sure we couldn't do
better than the Japanese. Maybe, maybe not. But I think that is the
direction we need to head in. You can be cautious, which is probably a
wise
thing to do.

Industrial policies and industrial planning are one area where neoliberal
economics is right, based on experience. Central planning can never keep up
with markets and always leads to big market distortions and big
inefficiences as a result. I was a big advocate of planning and industrial
policies for years, but I eventually got it pounded out of me by researching
and reporting on world manufacturing and trade. It's not good, Hawke.



We might even plan which areas we want to allow free
trade to operate in and which areas that we think that would be a bad
idea
for the majority of Americans. In other words a system that is not free
trade.

The idea is to limit the *velocity* of change, not its magnitude. You can
give an industry and the people who work for it some time to adjust, in a
world in which an industry can be devastated in a couple of years, but if
you hothouse that industry, you're soon going to have a useless, bloated,
and noncompetitive clunker of an industry.

That may be true but sometimes you need to keep an industry for other
reasons. Take steel. Say we are not competitive in the free market sense
and
we let the industry go to where it can be done better and cheaper. But now
we have no access to steel, which we may need in a war. How would it be if
we needed steel from China but that is who we go to war with. We'd be
screwed. So there are some industries a country may want to keep even
though
they don't do as well as others.

We damned near did hothouse steel in the '70s. That's when reporting on the
steel industry was my #1 job. I was all for it.

Fortunately, we didn't do it. If we had, Nucor would have been stillborn.
Now we produce about 100 m tons of steel and consume 123 m tons. That's not
bad. And most of that steel is from mini-mills, ala Nucor. What they did is
to make the basic steel industry almost obsolete, but it wouldn't have
happened if their parent company wasn't under pressure to find a cheaper way
to produce steel.

Japan shouldn't be growning rice at all but
they are protecting that market so the local farmers can stay in business
even though they can't compete in a global market. Now rice isn't steel
but
the point is the same. For whatever reason the country may want to keep an
industry even if it's a bloated, useless, and noncompetitive clunker. We
should be making the choice not leaving it to the "market".

Whatever we do to control trade, or to slow down change, I hope it's nothing
like what the Japanese have done with rice. The reason they protect rice is
because of political pressure from rice growers, who are enormously strong
in Japanese politics. It's like our corn subsidies, only worse.

To me, that's the key long-term economic issue we face. Most of what's
going
on now in financial markets has little to do with it, and will play
itself
out regardless of it. The question is how much damage we can afford to
sustain for the sake of an economic theory that has never, in reality,
been
tried befo free trade.

Free trade is like the honor system, it's a game where if everyone
plays
by
the rules some get ahead but the majority get the shaft. With a game
like
that is it any wonder why nobody is playing by free market rules? There
are
just too many losers in real free trade for very many to want to play
that
game. The fact is the US was able to win the global economic
competition
game for many years, so we loved it. But now others are coming up to
compete
with us and they are actually beating us, say, like the Japanese
automakers
are destroying the American ones. Now if we played by the free trade,
free
competition rules we will lose that industry just like we lost consumer
electronics and several others. Do we want to let our automakers be
destroyed in the global market or do we want to fix the game just
enough
so
that we can keep playing?

I think what we want is for the Japanese automakers to become more
American
than Japanese. And that seems to be what's happening. d8-)

70% of the cars they sell in the US are made here right now. That means
they
are made by Americans, in America, and sold to Americans. Sounds pretty
American like to me. Looks like the only thing that isn't American is the
people running the business, which pretty much shoots to hell the idea
that
Americans are the best at running a business.

As I think you pointed out, the US car business became an oligopoly, and
bred all of the troubles that oligopies typically breed. I'm doubtful that
it can be fixed. But the Japanese and some other builders who are operating
in the US are starting with a relatively clean slate. That gives them a huge
advantage. I'm hoping they'll all move here, permanently.



That's what it is all about, staying in the game economically. Those
countries that want to keep industries protect them and the countries
that
don't want to keep them don't.

Hmm. When was the last time you saw a French car in the US? Protecting is
usually bad. Giving a temporary shield, a delaying tactic, may sometimes
be
good. It's not easy to do to good effect, and it rarely is. But sometimes
it's necessary.

Since I've never seen a French car that I wanted to buy that's kind of
beside the point. Maybe there aren't any is because we don't want them?

Peugeot and Renault were doing pretty well when we had the invasion of
European cars in the late '50s until the late '60s. But both companies
suffered from a lack of market savvy in the US, due largely, say most
observers, to the fact that they were only good at operating in the hothouse
of protectionism that was France. They built cars that weren't suited for
the US market. Now they make much better cars, but the price of entry, and
the fierceness of competition, has kept them out of the US.

I
don't know what the deal is between the US and France regarding autos but
I
assume they are protecting their manufacturers and we are retaliating by
not
allowing them to be sold here.

Nope. They can sell anything they want. They don't want to try. The Italians
did the same thing. (Which cost me a bundle, because Alfa Romeo was my
advertising client at the time they moved out.)

But if nobody wants them we're not hurting
them much. If I remember Peugeot and Citroen were always garbage. They
probably wouldn't sell anywhere but in France anyway. But we agree
sometimes
protection is a good thing. The only question then is when and how much.


Free trade is simply global competition for
business. If there are no barriers it will be just like free market
capitalism everywhere. There will be a few big winners and a lot of
losers.
That is the outcome of free market capitalism everywhere it's been
tried.
Whether it's Standard Oil, Wal-Mart, or the old AT&T, free market
competition winds up with a monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly and all the
other competitors are put out of business. A great example of this is
the
American car market. Eighty years ago there were over 100 car
manufacturers
in the US. Eventually, there were three. That is what happens in a free
market and when you expand that market to include the whole world you
will
get the same thing. All the countries know this and that's why they
don't
want to play free market capitalism unless they believe they are one of
the
few countries that can come out on top. Most of them know they won't so
they
protect what they want to keep. Except for us. Because of the free
market
utopians in charge here we've allowed our markets to become too open to
unfair competition, and now we've got the worst trade deficits in the
world.
When something like free trade isn't working for you it's time to go
with
what does. The successful countries all use protectionism in one form
or
another. As soon as we start using the same tactics the sooner our
trade
deficit will start coming down, and probably the dollar will start
going
back up. Free trade has been a bust for us except for a lucky few. It's
time
to go back to what all of our competitors are using; protection for the
industries that are critical for the welfare of our nation. Which is
something we should have done years ago but with republicans in charge
that
wasn't possible. If we can get rid of them maybe we can make the
changes
necessary to turn things around. I think we all know where we're going
to
be
if we keep doing things like we have during Bush's term in office.

That kind of thinking is what may cause me to vote for McCain. If you're
going to tamper with markets, you'd better be damned sure of what you're
doing. What others are doing is of little help to us in deciding what
*we*
should do. We can't be mercantilists like the Chinese or the Asian
Tigers.
Europe is not a model we would accept. Japan has run out of gas and
they're
no shining example.

I'm pretty sure you'd vote for McCain despite anything I did. Old habits
die
hard. If you're a conservative they never do.

I'm on the fence and I'm waiting to see how the real campaign goes. I voted
once for a Republican president in the last 40 years.

Unless some change is forced
you will continue to repeat the same pattern. That's unfortunate because
it's so anti intellectual. The idea is that you don't "tamper" with
markets.
You protect what you think is in the national interest to keep or to stop
other nations from damaging you. Sure, you can go overboard and mess
things
up but this is one area where being conservative is a plus. It's like
grinding. You can always take away but once you grind it off you can't put
it back on. So going slow and cautious is the way to do it.

Definitely. Markets are like high-horsepower engines. They need a throttle
or they blow up. But you don't want to try to control the valves and the
fuel flow while you're driving. (I could extend this metaphor into complete
idiocy with no trouble, but I'll stop here. d8-))


We need trade but we need something cautious, backed by a more
conservative
monetary policy and a more balanced fiscal policy. Trade will have to be
slowed down for a while. We have to re-invest in infrastructure. That
means
a willingness to accept some real pain to get things back on track.


Pain will be necessary because of the excesses and mistakes already made.
Corrections usually hurt. But we have to get back on track and that means
putting people in charge who don't believe in unfettered free markets.
They
are the ones who got us in this mess. Trade needs to be balanced and some
protection will help. We really need a whole new policy in this area and
we
have to be honest and not go with the ideologues. We need to examine what
isn't working and change it and we need to see what is working and expand
in
those areas. It's really just a matter of replacing incompetent managers
with competent ones. There are some good people out there, they're just
not
working for us right now.

Just so we don't foul the spark plugs and kill the engine. (hee-hee! It's
endless...)

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:25:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

This whole discussion sounds like a bunch of buggy whip makers in 1903
===========
How about the coffee shop in November 1929?

Huge raids on the federal treasury [i.e. the taxpayers] starts.
See below for the gory details.
snip
==========
What a choice -- would you rather see the US economy killed by
inflation or lack of liquidity.

== Remember that as tax payers, it is your money that is being
used and put at risk. The amounts involved are far in excess of
the "tax rebate" that you were promised. This is a direct result
of the repeal of Glass-Steagal1 (2) and the systemic evasion of
loan reserve requirements. Even the cash under your matress is
at risk through the operation of inflation.

From the UK some observations on this "rescue effort."

click on
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...nch.useconomy1

FWIW -- "Mr. Market" does not seemed to impressed with the
efficacy of this "bail out."

Any nominations for the next "goat?" When does Carlyle and
Blackstone get the chop?


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:55:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I've done work for Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Bayer, Merck, and a half-dozen
others. Since I was editing the research studies (and writing some of the
conclusions and physician-education materials), I'm familiar with the
research itself.

--
Ed Huntress
=============
If you have high speed internet watch
http://media.goleft.tv/medias/rofpod...gs_256_new.wmv

Ha-ha! It looks like the Pap Attack has taken a few pages from Coulter and
Limbaugh. As I was listening to that I was thinking about a 74-year-old guy
down in Atlanta, I think, who designed, built, and raced his own Formula
Ford back when I was active in SCCA. I heard he wasn't bad, at that.

The age thing is mostly a bunch of hooey, as far as McCain's mental state is
concerned. People as active and as challenged as he's been don't lose much,
if any mental acuity until quite late in their lives.

If you sit around or just play golf, it's another story.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:55:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I've done work for Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Bayer, Merck, and a half-dozen
others. Since I was editing the research studies (and writing some of the
conclusions and physician-education materials), I'm familiar with the
research itself.

--
Ed Huntress
=============
If you have high speed internet watch
http://media.goleft.tv/medias/rofpod...gs_256_new.wmv


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:55:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I've done work for Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Bayer, Merck, and a half-dozen
others. Since I was editing the research studies (and writing some of the
conclusions and physician-education materials), I'm familiar with the
research itself.

--
Ed Huntress
=============
More "stinky stuff" floats to the surface about our "ethical"
drug companies.

In many ways this parallels the financial sector in that the many
highly ethical and committed people involved in building the
sector long-term are having their legs cut off by the crooks and
incompetents at the top looking for short-term "results" and
bonuses. It is called killing the goose that lays the golden
eggs....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080315/...rYaAYxfQHVJRIF
http://www.nbc5.com/health/15506894/...chi&psp=health
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/2008030...ion_of_justice
http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi...ws.pl?id=12411
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008...er-under-fire/
These are only some of the latest articles identified in a very
quick web search. There are thousands more.


More on research outsourcing [and those high paying jobs]. The
reason these are mainly foreign or obscure US sources is that
appears to be the main-stream US media is not carrying the story.
Possibly advertising revenue is a consideration. Note that in
several articles the new GM/bioengineering large molecule drugs
are specifically covered. These are only the most recent
articles I found in a very quick web search.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080313/asia_...ocus.html?.v=1
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/...1451700300.htm
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/dis...s/?rsssource=1
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080312/20080312006023.html?.v=1
http://www.pharmabiz.com/article/det...rticleid=43410
http://www.examiner.com/p-130721~inV...an_Region.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080310/0372746.html
http://www.centredaily.com/business/...ry/456932.html


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:55:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I've done work for Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Bayer, Merck, and a half-dozen
others. Since I was editing the research studies (and writing some of the
conclusions and physician-education materials), I'm familiar with the
research itself.

--
Ed Huntress
=============
More "stinky stuff" floats to the surface about our "ethical"
drug companies.

In many ways this parallels the financial sector in that the many
highly ethical and committed people involved in building the
sector long-term are having their legs cut off by the crooks and
incompetents at the top looking for short-term "results" and
bonuses. It is called killing the goose that lays the golden
eggs....

snip

George, I'm a heavy reader, but that's too much for me. Is there a 25-word
summary? g

Are they about individual crooks in the business, or about crooked
corporations? Or is is something else?

--
Ed Huntress


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080315/...rYaAYxfQHVJRIF

I read the first one. This is a very, very gray area. In fact, a small part
of what I was doing was supporting off-label uses of drugs. This may sound
strange or unethical, but, like most things, it's not simple. Doctors use
drugs off-label anyway, as that article says. A lot of what they do is based
on nothing but unsupported speculation about the drugs' effects. There are
several legal ways the drug companies can pass on peer-reviewed research
about off-label uses, however, which the docs really eat up. There's a line
that you don't cross; perhaps this Lilly exec crossed it, or perhaps the CT
prosecutor is looking to create a new type of crime by prosecutorial fiat. I
wouldn't judge it yet.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:52:30 -0800, "Jim Insolo"
wrote:

This whole discussion sounds like a bunch of buggy whip makers in 1903
===========
A "Bear" market?

More follow up on Bear Stearns and Darwinian Capitalism [not]

== Remember that as a tax payer and/or holder of US dollars
[i.e. through inflation], it is your capital that is being
flushed down this toilet. ==

NB: the CDS [credit debt swap] derivatives have yet to kick in.
Derivatives were accurately described by Warren Buffet as
"financial weapons of mass destruction." 5-4-3-2.... When this
particular grift blows, it is likely that the Fed/Treasury won't
be able to create "money" fast enough to contain the explosion.

for complete article click on
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/bu...tner=BREITBART
===========
Rescue Me: A Fed Bailout Crosses a Line

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: March 16, 2008
snip
WHAT are the consequences of a world in which regulators rescue
even the financial institutions whose recklessness and greed
helped create the titanic credit mess we are in? Will the
consequences be an even weaker currency, rampant inflation, a
continuation of the slow bleed that we have witnessed at banks
and brokerage firms for the past year?
snip
Agreeing to guarantee a 28-day credit line to Bear Stearns, by
way of JPMorgan Chase, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
conceded last Friday that no sizable firm with a book of mortgage
securities or loans out to mortgage issuers could be allowed to
fail right now. It was the most explicit sign yet of the Fed’s
“Rescues ‘R’ Us” doctrine that already helped to force the
marriage of Bank of America and Countrywide.
snip
Bear’s default rates on so-called Alt-A mortgages that it
underwrote also indicates that its lending practices were
especially lax during the real estate boom. As of February,
according to Bloomberg data, 15 percent of these loans in its
underwritten securities were delinquent by more than 60 days or
in foreclosure. That compares with an industry average of 8.4
percent.
{ My comment: Note that these CDOs are *NOT* backed by GSE AAA
rated bonds but are backed by Alt-A "high yield" [i.e. "junk"]
mortgages, yet the taxpayers are still on the hook.}
snip
“For the government to print money at the expense of taxpayers as
opposed to requiring or going about a receivership and wind-down
of any insolvent institutions should be troubling to taxpayers
and regulators alike,” said Josh Rosner, an analyst at Graham
Fisher & Company and an expert on mortgage securities. “The Fed
has now crossed the line in a very clear way on ‘moral hazard,’
because they have opened the door to the view that they are
required to save almost any institution through non-recourse
loans — except the government doesn’t have the money and it
destroys the U.S.’s reputation as the broadest, deepest, most
transparent and properly regulated capital market in the world.”
snip
Only last Monday, for example, Bear put out a press release
saying, “there is absolutely no truth to the rumors of liquidity
problems that circulated today in the market.” The next day,
Christopher Cox, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, said he was comfortable that the major Wall Street
firms were resting on satisfactory “capital cushions.”

Three days later, it was bailout time for Bear.
snip
==============


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

As Ed said in another thread...

follow-on to my follow-on

NB: the CDS [credit debt swap] derivatives have yet to kick in.
Derivatives were accurately described by Warren Buffet as
"financial weapons of mass destruction."
5-4-3-2.... When this particular grift blows, it is likely
that the Fed/Treasury won't be able to create "money" fast enough
to contain the explosion.

Its a bad sign when the major/main-stream media at last starts to
report things like this.... Note the last paragraph about the
CDSs.
=============
snip
"The volume of financial contracts that are not traded on any
major exchanges has ballooned in recent years after the bailout
of a big hedge fund, Long-Term Capital Management, in 1998. Now,
much of the trading in derivative contracts tied to stocks and
bonds takes place in unregulated transactions between financial
institutions."
snip
Regulators are facing an unprecedented and widespread
deterioration in many markets. Last summer, the value of risky
and exotic securities plummeted in value. Now, even top-rated
securities once deemed as safe as Treasuries have hit the skids.
Financial firms have written down more than $150 billion of their
assets. Some analysts are predicting that losses in various
credit markets will reach $600 billion.
snip
It [Bear Stearns] is also among the biggest firms in the prime
brokerage business, or the financing of hedge funds. In recent
weeks, nervous fund managers have scrambled to protect
themselves. Robert Sloan, who is the managing partner at S3
Partners, a financing specialist that works with hedge funds, has
shifted $25 billion out of Bear Stearns accounts in the last two
months, he said.
snip
But the bigger worry for hedge funds and others that do business
with Bear Stearns is whether the firm will be able to honor its
trades. Of particular concern are the insurance contracts known
as credit default swaps in which one party agrees to guarantee
interest and principal payments in case an issuer defaults on its
bonds. Investors in such contracts with Bear Stearns are closely
studying whether they can get out of them or have them
transferred to a more stable firm.
snip
=========
for complete article click on
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/bu...tner=BREITBART


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:55:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I've done work for Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Bayer, Merck, and a half-dozen
others. Since I was editing the research studies (and writing some of the
conclusions and physician-education materials), I'm familiar with the
research itself.

--
Ed Huntress
=============
see this one yet?

The European commission has mounted dawn raids on pharmaceutical
companies across Europe as part of an investigation into possible
anti-competitive behaviour that could be preventing new drugs and
cheaper generic alternatives from entering the market.

The raids, staged on Tuesday at the offices of companies
including GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer
and Merck, as well as generic firms such as Teva, are part of
increasing scrutiny of an industry worth €200bn (£150bn) a year
in the EU alone. They were dovetailed with, among others, the
British, French and German competition authorities. The EU is
also working with its US counterpart, the federal trade
commission, and the Swiss.
snip
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...hklinebusiness
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:06:16
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

I believe the U.S. checkbook and Visa Card is under the control of Congress
- the majority of which is Democrats.

Shsssss! Dont confuse him with facts.

Anyone else notice a possible correlation between the Democrats
taking control of Congress, the decline of the dollar on the forex
markets, and the increases in the price of petroleum?
Not that correlation equates to causation...

--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:04:50 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:06:16
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

I believe the U.S. checkbook and Visa Card is under the control of Congress
- the majority of which is Democrats.

Shsssss! Dont confuse him with facts.

Anyone else notice a possible correlation between the Democrats
taking control of Congress, the decline of the dollar on the forex
markets, and the increases in the price of petroleum?
Not that correlation equates to causation...


Hummm...now that you mention it......





"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Tweety Bird wrote in article
...


I'll answer your questions for you.

So, you are saying that the Democrat-majority Congress is refusing to
pass
any consumer protection bills in order to allow Bush to swing in the
wind.

No, because that's wrong. Simple majorities in Congress don't mean one
has
control over which bills get passed and which ones don't. Unless a party
has
a super majority where it can pass anything it likes even when the other
party opposes it, like the republicans had for 8 years, it has to reach
compromises with the opposition to pass anything. So the Democrats can't
simply pass any bill they want. They must have republican support.
Republicans don't support anything Pelosi wants to pass. That means the
Congress isn't refusing to pass any consumer protection bills. It means
the
republican opposition is rufusing to let any Democratic bill to pass. So
it's your guys who are obstructing the passage of any bill. That means
the
Democrats aren't doing anything, except trying to pass laws that benefit
the
public.




Boy! It's a good thing that the dems NEVER obstruct the passage of ANY
Republican bills, eh?



Or are you suggesting that Bush, somehow, holds a magic spell over
Pelosi
and her posse?

Not a magic spell but a veto and a big enough republican minority to
prevent
her from accomplishing anything. With those in hand he has enough
political
power to stop her from passing bills or forces her to compromise in ways
she
doesn't want to do. So it's not magic it's a matter of having political
power. Republicans use that power on a daily basis to stop Democrats and
to
stop anything that will help regular people. Like you.



So, when the Republicans had the majority, THEY had the power, but now that
the democrats have the majority, the Republicans have the power?

Looks as though ol' Nancy the Nutcase lied to you libs when she suggested
that the democrats now had control, and things would be different.

Please excuse me for saying this, but that old liberal logic is sure
difficult to follow.

Why doesn'y MY mind think that way?



Surely, you understand that the President alone cannot arbitrarily and
unilaterally pass laws.

We all know that, even you, I think. But the ability to stop laws from
passing is almost as good a power as being able to pass laws. He can veto
and Democratic legislation and with his party backing him up it sticks.
But
not only can he veto he can pass signing statements saying what part of
the
laws he will follow, and he can enact what amounts to law with executive
orders. He also can send the military anywhere he wants without
congressional approval for 90 days. All in all, that gives him beaucoup
power. But the power to pass laws by himself, no. But we all knew that so
why ask such a dumb question?


Let's see.....We've been in Iraq for a little longer than 90 days now, so
Bush is STILL to blame?.....even though he can send troops for only 90 days
without approval from Congress?



That's grade-school civics.

Which is why even you can understand it, but barely.


It would appear that my grade-school understanding of civics exceeds
whatever level of liberal education you have received in your life.........

"*" wrote in message
news:01b41e65$b73ffc00$8591c3d8@race...


Tweety Bird wrote in article
...


I'll answer your questions for you.

So, you are saying that the Democrat-majority Congress is refusing to
pass
any consumer protection bills in order to allow Bush to swing in the
wind.

No, because that's wrong. Simple majorities in Congress don't mean one
has
control over which bills get passed and which ones don't. Unless a party
has
a super majority where it can pass anything it likes even when the other
party opposes it, like the republicans had for 8 years, it has to reach
compromises with the opposition to pass anything. So the Democrats can't
simply pass any bill they want. They must have republican support.
Republicans don't support anything Pelosi wants to pass. That means the
Congress isn't refusing to pass any consumer protection bills. It means
the
republican opposition is rufusing to let any Democratic bill to pass. So
it's your guys who are obstructing the passage of any bill. That means
the
Democrats aren't doing anything, except trying to pass laws that benefit
the
public.




Boy! It's a good thing that the dems NEVER obstruct the passage of ANY
Republican bills, eh?



Or are you suggesting that Bush, somehow, holds a magic spell over
Pelosi
and her posse?

Not a magic spell but a veto and a big enough republican minority to
prevent
her from accomplishing anything. With those in hand he has enough
political
power to stop her from passing bills or forces her to compromise in ways
she
doesn't want to do. So it's not magic it's a matter of having political
power. Republicans use that power on a daily basis to stop Democrats and
to
stop anything that will help regular people. Like you.



So, when the Republicans had the majority, THEY had the power, but now
that
the democrats have the majority, the Republicans have the power?

Maybe it's time for you to dig out your high school civics book, Asterisk.
Apparently you forgot how it works.

There will be a quiz, with three questions: First, after Congress passes a
bill, who has to sign it? Second, if he doesn't sign it, what are the
different things that can happen to the bill? Third, if Congress is going to
override a veto, how many votes do they need?


Looks as though ol' Nancy the Nutcase lied to you libs when she suggested
that the democrats now had control, and things would be different.

Things *are* different. Now the President is vetoing bills, or threatening
veto and the blocking of legislation that contains some necessary provision,
provoking standoffs and crises, in an attempt to force a minority's will on
the American people. This was expected. Our President is a petty tyrant.


Please excuse me for saying this, but that old liberal logic is sure
difficult to follow.

It's not that hard. Most kids pass high school civics. Apparently you found
it a challenge.


Why doesn'y MY mind think that way?

This is not a question for mortal men to answer, but it could be an
interesting subject for research.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:42:36 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, F.
George McDuffee quickly quoth:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:24:58 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
It's not that hard. Most kids pass high school civics. Apparently you found
it a challenge.
snip
=================
Its the traditional problem of how things *SHOULD* work [or
worked at one time] v. how they *DO* work. Not only do high
school civics classes have this problem but also the university
political science classes.

For example, Condoleezza Rice earned her bachelor's degree in
political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the
University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of
Notre Dame in 1975;

How do you jump from a BA to a MA degree in -one- year, pray tell?

--
Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives.
-- A. Sachs

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:24:58 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
It's not that hard. Most kids pass high school civics. Apparently you found
it a challenge.
snip
=================
Its the traditional problem of how things *SHOULD* work [or
worked at one time] v. how they *DO* work. Not only do high
school civics classes have this problem but also the university
political science classes.

For example, Condoleezza Rice earned her bachelor's degree in
political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the
University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of
Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of
International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/rice-bio.html


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:29:20 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

,;On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:42:36 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, F.
,;George McDuffee quickly quoth:
,;
,;On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:24:58 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
,;snip
,;It's not that hard. Most kids pass high school civics. Apparently you found
,;it a challenge.
,;snip
,;=================
,;Its the traditional problem of how things *SHOULD* work [or
,;worked at one time] v. how they *DO* work. Not only do high
,;school civics classes have this problem but also the university
,;political science classes.
,;
,;For example, Condoleezza Rice earned her bachelor's degree in
,;political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the
,;University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of
,;Notre Dame in 1975;
,;
,;How do you jump from a BA to a MA degree in -one- year, pray tell?

Not at all difficult. Particularly if you are in a Ph.D. program.
Frequently the Master's thesis is waived for Ph.D. candidates. The
school where I got a MS and Ph. D. in chemistry "awarded?" a MS
degree fairly quickly to students that failed to qualify for the PH.D.
degree. Most students who left the school with an MS (in the chemistry
department) actually flunked out of the Ph. D. program. Students who
were on a successful Ph. D. track picked up a MS degree as a formality
without a thesis in one year including summer school.