It comes about by reducing the cost of labor, and this comes about by
transferring production facilities to that part of the world where
labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation. This makes it possible to
produce products elsewhere and then import them here without paying
any tariffs. It also comes about by moving corporate headquarters
anywhere in the world where taxes are the least and incentives (such
as free land) are the greatest
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

Millwright Ron wrote:

It comes


Give it a rest, hypocrite. You're using a cheap chinese made
computer to spread your crap and lies while spouting union BS.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:17:36 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Millwright Ron wrote:

It comes


Give it a rest, hypocrite. You're using a cheap chinese made
computer to spread your crap and lies while spouting union BS.


Are there any U.S. made PC's? Computer's having all their components
manufactured in the U.S. ?


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

Millwright Ron wrote:
It comes about by reducing the cost of labor, and this comes about by
transferring production facilities to that part of the world where
labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation. This makes it possible to
produce products elsewhere and then import them here without paying
any tariffs. It also comes about by moving corporate headquarters
anywhere in the world where taxes are the least and incentives (such
as free land) are the greatest
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

Guess it comes down to what you would call corporate greed and power vs.
what some of us would call Organized Labor greed and power. The
pendulum tends to swing both ways. /mark

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:17:36 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Millwright Ron wrote:

It comes


Give it a rest, hypocrite. You're using a cheap chinese made
computer to spread your crap and lies while spouting union BS.

Are there any U.S. made PC's? Computer's having all their components
manufactured in the U.S. ?


Not any more, but Ron and Hawkie damn everyone for using Chinese
products, while using the very same.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:48:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:17:36 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Millwright Ron wrote:

It comes


Give it a rest, hypocrite. You're using a cheap chinese made
computer to spread your crap and lies while spouting union BS.

Are there any U.S. made PC's? Computer's having all their components
manufactured in the U.S. ?


Not any more, but Ron and Hawkie damn everyone for using Chinese
products, while using the very same.


I'd hate to tell 'em but that has been true for ever and ever. The
first IBM PC's monitor (labeled IBM) was made in Taiwan and I remember
my TRS-80 had chips in it that were made in Malaysia.


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

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

Are there any U.S. made PC's? Computer's having all their components
manufactured in the U.S. ?

Well maybe those destined for the NSA. If I was running the CIA or NSA, I
sure wouldn't use off shore computers.

Wes

Millwright Ron wrote:
It comes about by reducing the cost of labor, and this comes about by
transferring production facilities to that part of the world where
labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation. This makes it possible to
produce products elsewhere and then import them here without paying
any tariffs. It also comes about by moving corporate headquarters
anywhere in the world where taxes are the least and incentives (such
as free land) are the greatest
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com
Years ago, a friend went on about the fact that TV sets were now
being made in MEXICO. My response was a happy one - none had been
made in North America for at least 10 years at that point. She
failed to see the good side... /mark

Wes wrote:

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

Are there any U.S. made PC's? Computer's having all their components
manufactured in the U.S. ?

Well maybe those destined for the NSA. If I was running the CIA or NSA, I
sure wouldn't use off shore computers.


Where are you going to buy them? NO ONE IN THE UNITED STATES MAKES
ALL THE REQUIRED PARTS. They haven't for decades. Even IBM and DEC used
foreign made parts in their computers. IBM owned factories in Malaysa
and other out of the way places that didn't have the strict regulations,
like the EPA in the United States.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:18:04 GMT, Mark F wrote:

Millwright Ron wrote:
It comes about by reducing the cost of labor, and this comes about by
transferring production facilities to that part of the world where
labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation. This makes it possible to
produce products elsewhere and then import them here without paying
any tariffs. It also comes about by moving corporate headquarters
anywhere in the world where taxes are the least and incentives (such
as free land) are the greatest
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

Guess it comes down to what you would call corporate greed and power vs.
what some of us would call Organized Labor greed and power. The
pendulum tends to swing both ways. /mark

What about consumer greed and power -- you and me and Millwright Ron?
What do we look for first, the price tag or the country of
manufacture?

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:44:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Wes wrote:

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

Are there any U.S. made PC's? Computer's having all their components
manufactured in the U.S. ?

Well maybe those destined for the NSA. If I was running the CIA or NSA, I
sure wouldn't use off shore computers.


Where are you going to buy them? NO ONE IN THE UNITED STATES MAKES
ALL THE REQUIRED PARTS. They haven't for decades. Even IBM and DEC used
foreign made parts in their computers. IBM owned factories in Malaysa
and other out of the way places that didn't have the strict regulations,
like the EPA in the United States.

The cheerful slave labor (typically young Muslim girls who they put up
in dorms and supply with chaperones in places like Penang) is probably
a lot more of a draw than any apparent laxness of environmental
regulations.

http://law.nus.edu.sg/apcel/dbase/ma.../reportma.html
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

The cheerful slave labor (typically young Muslim girls who they put up
in dorms and supply with chaperones in places like Penang) is probably
a lot more of a draw than any apparent laxness of environmental
regulations.


Is that why IBM was called "Big Blue"?


--
My sig file can beat up your sig file!

On Mar 10, 1:27 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Is that why IBM was called "Big Blue"?


"Big Blue" was called that because the cover panels on all their
computer equipment was blue,unless you special ordered another color.
Sometimes the companies I worked for bought used equipment and once or
twice we got a red box or a yellow box. You could buy new blue panels
if you wanted all to match.

Paul

wrote:

On Mar 10, 1:27 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Is that why IBM was called "Big Blue"?


"Big Blue" was called that because the cover panels on all their
computer equipment was blue,unless you special ordered another color.
Sometimes the companies I worked for bought used equipment and once or
twice we got a red box or a yellow box. You could buy new blue panels
if you wanted all to match.


WHOOSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


--
My sig file can beat up your sig file!

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

Give it a rest, hypocrite. You're using a cheap chinese made
computer to spread your crap and lies while spouting union BS.


Hey, that's not fair. Because you're probably using a cheap Chinese made
computer to spread your crap and lies while spouting anti union BS too. In
your case I'm sure of it.


Hawke

"Mark F" wrote in message
news:gyaBj.68588$pM4.58673@pd7urf1no...
Millwright Ron wrote:
It comes about by reducing the cost of labor, and this comes about by
transferring production facilities to that part of the world where
labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation. This makes it possible to
produce products elsewhere and then import them here without paying
any tariffs. It also comes about by moving corporate headquarters
anywhere in the world where taxes are the least and incentives (such
as free land) are the greatest
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

Guess it comes down to what you would call corporate greed and power vs.
what some of us would call Organized Labor greed and power. The
pendulum tends to swing both ways. /mark


There is a big difference though. When the pendulum swings to the side of
unions regular working class Americans get more of everything and it
improves their lives and helps the whole country. When it swings over to the
side of the corporations the only ones who benefit are the company
management and stockholders. They then live like aristocrats while ordinary
people see their lives get a lot worse. Kind of like it is right now. So
tell me, which way is better for the most people?

Hawke

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

Hawke wrote:

Give it a rest, hypocrite. You're using a cheap chinese made
computer to spread your crap and lies while spouting union BS.

Hey, that's not fair. Because you're probably using a cheap Chinese made
computer to spread your crap and lies while spouting anti union BS too. In
your case I'm sure of it.


What's your point birdbrain? You and Ron spout the 'Union, or else'
BS, yet you use Chinese equipment. I never claimed not to but then, I
generally use used systems, built from salvaged parts. That means I
didn't buy mine, but you paid your Chinese owner.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:12:39 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


"Mark F" wrote in message
news:gyaBj.68588$pM4.58673@pd7urf1no...
Millwright Ron wrote:
It comes about by reducing the cost of labor, and this comes about by
transferring production facilities to that part of the world where
labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation. This makes it possible to
produce products elsewhere and then import them here without paying
any tariffs. It also comes about by moving corporate headquarters
anywhere in the world where taxes are the least and incentives (such
as free land) are the greatest
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

Guess it comes down to what you would call corporate greed and power vs.
what some of us would call Organized Labor greed and power. The
pendulum tends to swing both ways. /mark


There is a big difference though. When the pendulum swings to the side of
unions regular working class Americans get more of everything and it
improves their lives and helps the whole country. When it swings over to the
side of the corporations the only ones who benefit are the company
management and stockholders. They then live like aristocrats while ordinary
people see their lives get a lot worse. Kind of like it is right now. So
tell me, which way is better for the most people?

Hawke

It is difficult to believe that you are as naive as you appear to be.
Your statement "the only ones who benefit are the company
management and stockholders. They then live like aristocrats while
ordinary people see their lives get a lot worse" is almost
unbelievably uninformed. Have you never heard of CALPERS? One of the
largest stockholders/investors in the world with some $236 Billion
invested. I suggest that you Google "CALPERS" to discover who/what
they are and who the shareholders that benefit are. Hardly
aristocrats, Then, perhaps, you might wish re-word your post above.

..



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

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)

On Mar 11, 12:38*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 -



You can buy a new Dodge pick truck up in the USA. One assembled in
Mexico,one assembled in the U.S. and one assembled in Canada.
All three sell for the same price.
So I say spend your money where you make it. Buy built in the USA.

Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
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.

There was no "world market" when prices and wages were established by market
forces in the US. What happened is that the "world market" grew up, around
pittance wages and trivial embedded costs, fueled by the free movement of
capital and the rapid transfer of technology.


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?

No, it isn't relevent to the situation in manufacturing. The fact here is
that the US is the only developed or developing country in the world that
doesn't have price controls on pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, the wild
and crazy US drug market is the reason we have the researchers who have
moved here from Germany, France, and the UK, and they've lost them in big
numbers. It's the reason we have tens of thousands of jobs they would like
to have. It's the reason that I, as a medical writer and editor, made around
50% more than I made as a manufacturing writer and editor.

The current economic troubles cloud the issue, but the fact is that Germans
and French have been screaming -- even the OECD has been screaming -- that
pharma price controls in those countries have gutted their industries and
moved them mostly to the US.

That's not to say that I would support the lack of price controls here 100%.
But facts are facts. We have the numbers, and the top-paying pharma jobs.

--
Ed Huntress

Hawkie wrote:

There is a big difference though. When the pendulum swings to the side of
unions regular working class Americans get more of everything and it
improves their lives and helps the whole country. When it swings over to the
side of the corporations the only ones who benefit are the company
management and stockholders. They then live like aristocrats while ordinary
people see their lives get a lot worse. Kind of like it is right now. So
tell me, which way is better for the most people?

Union greed is always bad for everyone other than those at the top
level of their Ponzi Scheme. You're too ignorant to realize this, of
course. If EVERY worker in the US was in a union, things would be even
worse, because every one of you inbred losers think you're worth more
than anyone else and inflation would be in a race to infinity.


--
My sig file can beat up your sig file!

Millwright Ron wrote:

You can buy a new Dodge pick truck up in the USA. One assembled in
Mexico,one assembled in the U.S. and one assembled in Canada.
All three sell for the same price.
So I say spend your money where you make it. Buy built in the USA.


That's it, keep changing the subject, because you're too stopid to see
the truth in what was said. Now, how many times a month do you buy a
new truck?


--
My sig file can beat up your sig file!

On Mar 11, 10:13*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Hawkie wrote:

There is a big difference though. When the pendulum swings to the side of
unions regular working class Americans get more of everything and it
improves their lives and helps the whole country. When it swings over to the
side of the corporations the only ones who benefit are the company
management and stockholders. They then live like aristocrats while ordinary
people see their lives get a lot worse. Kind of like it is right now. So
tell me, which way is better for the most people?

* Union greed is always bad for everyone other than those at the top
level of their Ponzi Scheme. You're too ignorant to realize this, of
course. If EVERY worker in the US was in a union, things would be even
worse, because every one of you inbred losers think you're worth more
than anyone else and inflation would be in a race to infinity.

--
My sig file can beat up your sig file!

Unions are only about 10 percent of the work force. So why do you
blame them? Besides your poor opinion of people that are Union.
The real enemy is greed

It is not how much it costs the manufacturers or what the laborers
get paid. . It is about GREED, GREED of the CEO's, GREED of US
POLITICIANS

On Mar 11, 10:16*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Millwright Ron wrote:

You can buy a new Dodge pick truck up in the USA. One assembled in
Mexico,one assembled *in the U.S. and one assembled in Canada.
All three sell for the same price.
So I say spend your money where you make it. Buy built in the USA.

That's it, keep changing the subject, because you're too stopid to see
the truth in what was said. *Now, how many times a month do you buy a
new truck?

--
My sig file can beat up your sig file!





You really don't get it..

What is so difficult for you to understand..... BUY BUILT IN THE USA
Buy from your local area,buy from your local store, buy from the
local mom and pop business
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

On Mar 11, 10:06*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in messagenews:l8cct3tl17taro2k6k4ktev4djekouumeq@4ax .com...





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.

There was no "world market" when prices and wages were established by market
forces in the US. What happened is that the "world market" grew up, around
pittance wages and trivial embedded costs, fueled by the free movement of
capital and the rapid transfer of technology.



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?

No, it isn't relevent to the situation in manufacturing. The fact here is
that the US is the only developed or developing country in the world that
doesn't have price controls on pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, the wild
and crazy US drug market is the reason we have the researchers who have
moved here from Germany, France, and the UK, and they've lost them in big
numbers. It's the reason we have tens of thousands of jobs they would like
to have. It's the reason that I, as a medical writer and editor, made around
50% more than I made as a manufacturing writer and editor.

The current economic troubles cloud the issue, but the fact is that Germans
and French have been screaming -- even the OECD has been screaming -- that
pharma price controls in those countries have gutted their industries and
moved them mostly to the US.

That's not to say that I would support the lack of price controls here 100%.
But facts are facts. We have the numbers, and the top-paying pharma jobs.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Ed I hate to say I agree with you on this one....but you are right.
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:06:03 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
There was no "world market" when prices and wages were established by market
forces in the US. What happened is that the "world market" grew up, around
pittance wages and trivial embedded costs, fueled by the free movement of
capital and the rapid transfer of technology.
snip
===========
Indeed, and be reminded that the Recardo grift of "comparative
advantage" posited that capital, including intellectual capital
[i.e. technology] is "fixed" within a country. As soon as
capital is free to relocate, "comparative advantage" disappears
leaving only "absolute advantage." The continued assumption (or
at least propagandizing] of "comparative advantage" with mobile
capital appears to account for the large number of problematic,
economic crisis [and paupers] being generated.


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 13:06:03 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
On the other hand, the wild
and crazy US drug market is the reason we have the researchers who have
moved here from Germany, France, and the UK, and they've lost them in big
numbers. It's the reason we have tens of thousands of jobs they would like
to have. It's the reason that I, as a medical writer and editor, made around
50% more than I made as a manufacturing writer and editor.
snip
==========
On the other hand, this does not seem to have helped in the last
few years in the generation of actual new products.

Consolidation, consolidation and yet more consolidation, (and the
asset stripping this implies) with evermore planning, planning,
planning seems to have eliminated any innovation (along with most
of their researchers). FWIW -- classifying a cost as a research
expense does not make it a research expense, it's simply "cooking
the books."

Pharmaceutical "profits" in the US now appear to be far more a
function of "who you know' [in the FDA], legal games (for example
preventing the manufacture of generic drugs based on your
lapsed/expired patents) and direct consumer marketing, than what
a company know about pharmacology, research methods, and
biochemistry or how good their product is. {and we call this the
"ethical drug" sector!]


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 13:06:03 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The current economic troubles cloud the issue, but the fact is that Germans
and French have been screaming -- even the OECD has been screaming -- that
pharma price controls in those countries have gutted their industries and
moved them mostly to the US.
And the consumers have the drugs at affordable prices...

That's not to say that I would support the lack of price controls here 100%.
But facts are facts. We have the numbers, and the top-paying pharma jobs.
Indeed we do, but the top paying jobs are for the book cooking,
asset stripping CEOs and MBA types. The actual research and
production are rapidly being offshored, mainly to China and
India.


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 13:06:03 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The current economic troubles cloud the issue, but the fact is that
Germans
and French have been screaming -- even the OECD has been screaming -- that
pharma price controls in those countries have gutted their industries and
moved them mostly to the US.
And the consumers have the drugs at affordable prices...

That's not to say that I would support the lack of price controls here
100%.
But facts are facts. We have the numbers, and the top-paying pharma jobs.
Indeed we do, but the top paying jobs are for the book cooking,
asset stripping CEOs and MBA types. The actual research and
production are rapidly being offshored, mainly to China and
India.

Production, but not much of the research. They can do the big-cohort studies
cheaper there but not many of them. Most are done here in the US.

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

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:06:03 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
On the other hand, the wild
and crazy US drug market is the reason we have the researchers who have
moved here from Germany, France, and the UK, and they've lost them in big
numbers. It's the reason we have tens of thousands of jobs they would like
to have. It's the reason that I, as a medical writer and editor, made
around
50% more than I made as a manufacturing writer and editor.
snip
==========
On the other hand, this does not seem to have helped in the last
few years in the generation of actual new products.

Consolidation, consolidation and yet more consolidation, (and the
asset stripping this implies) with evermore planning, planning,
planning seems to have eliminated any innovation (along with most
of their researchers). FWIW -- classifying a cost as a research
expense does not make it a research expense, it's simply "cooking
the books."

Pharmaceutical "profits" in the US now appear to be far more a
function of "who you know' [in the FDA], legal games (for example
preventing the manufacture of generic drugs based on your
lapsed/expired patents) and direct consumer marketing, than what
a company know about pharmacology, research methods, and
biochemistry or how good their product is. {and we call this the
"ethical drug" sector!]

It's not that simple, George. The 30-second version is that the
"small-molecule" drug business, on which those big pharma companies were
built, is on its last legs. You could say they've picked all the low-hanging
fruit and there aren't many new small-molecule drugs in the pipeline --
which lasts 10 years or so, from discovery to marketing.

The future looks like a big-molecule business, which means biologicals.
Those aren't well suited to big corporation research. Small, innovative
companies come up with them -- and drop like flies when they run out of
money. When they come up with something that looks hot, the big pharma
companies buy them out. That makes them both happy.

Meantime, as you say, survival requires "innovation" in patent-fighting and
DTC (direct-to-consumer) advertising. Enter Huntress...g

--
Ed Huntress

This looks like a good spot to post this little morale builder
from the Financial Times [UK]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e63ad12-e...0779fd2ac.html

"Suppose, then, that Prof Roubini were right. Losses of
$2,000bn-$3,000bn {2 to 3 trillion in American-speak} would
decapitalise the financial system. The government would have to
mount a rescue. The most plausible means of doing so would be via
nationalisation of all losses. While the US government could
afford to raise its debt by up to 20 per cent of GDP, in order to
do this, that decision would have huge ramifications. We would
have more than the biggest US financial crisis since the 1930s.
It would be an epochal political event."
===========
FWIW -- it appears the "money" being created and pumped into the
financial markets by the fed is *NOT* being used for the needed
liquidity in bond/credit markets but rather to fuel commodity
speculation, i.e. 110$/bbl oil, 12$ wheat, 20$ silver, etc.

The pyromaniacs are burning the house down [again].


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).

Millwright Ron wrote:

You really don't get it..

What is so difficult for you to understand..... BUY BUILT IN THE USA
Buy from your local area,buy from your local store, buy from the
local mom and pop business


You really don't get it. American made DOES NOT MEAN UNION MADE.

There are damn few local mom and pop businesses left around here,
unless you count flea markets. Even then, they have no investment in
the community. They show up for a while, then disappear.

I did support local businesses, till they disappeared. Owners
retire, buildings get sold, property taxes go up, and other pressures
build till they can't keep the doors open.

The local hardware stores almost never has what I need, and don't want
to special order it. Local computer stores refuse to sell parts, because
they are afraid of any imagined competition. ai always bought the best
quality I could find, for whatever I needed. Rarely was it union made.
In fact, most of the things I've seen with a union label were of
unacceptable quality, even if they were free. Why do you thing buying
online is so popular? You can drive around town, visit a hundred
stores, while spending a couple hundred dollars on gasoline. You still
don't find what you need, and end up buying from a big box store, or
online. This isn't 1800, when crackers were shipped in barrels, and the
local blacksmith made almost any hardware you needed. It is a new world,
with a global economy. You damn Wal-Mart, but I can't remember the last
thing I bought there that was imported. I look at the label of
everything I buy to see where it was made, but Union made doesn't
impress me, at all.


--
My sig file can beat up your sig file!

This whole discussion sounds like a bunch of buggy whip makers in 1903

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
This looks like a good spot to post this little morale builder
from the Financial Times [UK]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e63ad12-e...0779fd2ac.html

"Suppose, then, that Prof Roubini were right. Losses of
$2,000bn-$3,000bn {2 to 3 trillion in American-speak} would
decapitalise the financial system. The government would have to
mount a rescue. The most plausible means of doing so would be via
nationalisation of all losses. While the US government could
afford to raise its debt by up to 20 per cent of GDP, in order to
do this, that decision would have huge ramifications. We would
have more than the biggest US financial crisis since the 1930s.
It would be an epochal political event."
===========
FWIW -- it appears the "money" being created and pumped into the
financial markets by the fed is *NOT* being used for the needed
liquidity in bond/credit markets but rather to fuel commodity
speculation, i.e. 110$/bbl oil, 12$ wheat, 20$ silver, etc.

The pyromaniacs are burning the house down [again].


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 11:24:53 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

On Mar 11, 10:16*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Millwright Ron wrote:

You can buy a new Dodge pick truck up in the USA. One assembled in
Mexico,one assembled *in the U.S. and one assembled in Canada.
All three sell for the same price.
So I say spend your money where you make it. Buy built in the USA.

That's it, keep changing the subject, because you're too stopid to see
the truth in what was said. *Now, how many times a month do you buy a
new truck?

--
My sig file can beat up your sig file!


You really don't get it..

What is so difficult for you to understand..... BUY BUILT IN THE USA
Buy from your local area,buy from your local store, buy from the
local mom and pop business
Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com


Buy from the largest retailer in the world WalMart?


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

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:20:28 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

On Mar 11, 10:13*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Hawkie wrote:

There is a big difference though. When the pendulum swings to the side of
unions regular working class Americans get more of everything and it
improves their lives and helps the whole country. When it swings over to the
side of the corporations the only ones who benefit are the company
management and stockholders. They then live like aristocrats while ordinary
people see their lives get a lot worse. Kind of like it is right now. So
tell me, which way is better for the most people?

* Union greed is always bad for everyone other than those at the top
level of their Ponzi Scheme. You're too ignorant to realize this, of
course. If EVERY worker in the US was in a union, things would be even
worse, because every one of you inbred losers think you're worth more
than anyone else and inflation would be in a race to infinity.

--
My sig file can beat up your sig file!

Unions are only about 10 percent of the work force. So why do you
blame them? Besides your poor opinion of people that are Union.
The real enemy is greed

It is not how much it costs the manufacturers or what the laborers
get paid. . It is about GREED, GREED of the CEO's, GREED of US
POLITICIANS


And don't forget all the greedy people that buy from WalMart, Harbor
Freight and the other resellers of foreign made goods. They are greedy
too, trying to keep some of their hard earned capital instead of
spending it for high priced, and frequently poorly made, US made
goods.

..


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

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
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)

It's more complicated than that. The same company that makes that drug
probably sells it across the Canadian border for a lot less too. Our
pharmaceutical companies have the government by the balls and get
sweetheart
deals you wouldn't believe. If they had to really compete we'd be paying
the
same, or nearly the same as you are.

Nope. They aren't competing at all. What it takes is government price
controls on drugs. Everyone has them but us. That's why most drugs are
developed in the US. Our prices reflect all of the development costs. To
make money in Europe, they use a different accounting -- one in which all of
the development costs are sunk (in the US).

Another example, Bill Clinton was in
Africa promoting anti AIDS programs. They had one where drugs were being
supplied from Europe and it cost about 200.00 a year to keep someone alive
who had AIDS. The same medication in the US was 10,000. There is something
horribly wrong when you see that kind of a difference in costs of
medication.

What it says is that we're paying for the world's drugs. When you sort out
the arguments over this, you wind up with an accounting debate over whether
we're making it up in pharma jobs and corporate taxes. I've tried to sort it
out but it looks hopeless.

snip

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

On Mar 11, 10:06*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in messagenews:l8cct3tl17taro2k6k4ktev4djekouumeq@4ax .com...





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.

There was no "world market" when prices and wages were established by market
forces in the US. What happened is that the "world market" grew up, around
pittance wages and trivial embedded costs, fueled by the free movement of
capital and the rapid transfer of technology.

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?

No, it isn't relevent to the situation in manufacturing. The fact here is
that the US is the only developed or developing country in the world that
doesn't have price controls on pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, the wild
and crazy US drug market is the reason we have the researchers who have
moved here from Germany, France, and the UK, and they've lost them in big
numbers. It's the reason we have tens of thousands of jobs they would like
to have. It's the reason that I, as a medical writer and editor, made around
50% more than I made as a manufacturing writer and editor.

The current economic troubles cloud the issue, but the fact is that Germans
and French have been screaming -- even the OECD has been screaming -- that
pharma price controls in those countries have gutted their industries and
moved them mostly to the US.

That's not to say that I would support the lack of price controls here 100%.
But facts are facts. We have the numbers, and the top-paying pharma jobs.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This thread is going off at a tangent. I responded to Hawke's
statement that "In fact, they are kicking our asses", by stated that
the U.S. has priced themselves out of the world market and gave the
example of the cost of Zestril in Thailand vis-a-vis the U.S.

You respond that "it isn't relevant to the situation in
manufacturing", and then go on to explain that your salary in the
medical business was higher then in the manufacturing business.


My point is that costs in the U.S. are higher then in much of the rest
of the world and that is basic problem. It costs more to do something
in the U.S. then it does in other countries, whether it is building
something or doing something -- even answering the telephone has moved
offshore -- and as a result we have the situation that exists in the
U.S. today.

Now, this is not a simple problem and there are a host of underlying
reasons for the situation as it exists today. frankly I feel that they
are unsurmountable.

It is easy to blame it on the notion that the cause is the greedy
unions with their insatiable demands for pay increases. Or the greed
of CEO's ,which probably, is not that far out of line in reality --
Exxon, the largest company in the world? How much should we pay for
the guy that runs that company? But trying to assign blame to a single
entity, or cause, is an over simplistic point of view.

The root cause is that developed countries, simply by the nature of
the beasts, increase the standard of living of the population and the
demand for bigger, better, more, and as a result costs of doing
business in the country increases. So, as long as there are less
developed areas business will move to the cheaper, less developed
areas.

This happened, in the U.S., after WW II with industry leaving the N.E.
states (with the result of lost jobs and failing economies) and moving
to the South. It is now happening again, except industry is now moving
outside the U.S. because there is no longer undeveloped areas within
the country.






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