posting stripped to RCM only

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 27, 9:27 am, reinhardt wrote:
On Mar 24, 5:15 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The jury is out on this one....

What do you think?

TMT

Recession is a given. Can we avoid depression?

Why avoid one when that was desired goal to begin with?

Do you know how financially reasonable depression labor is?

Actually your comment does make sense.

No it doesn't.

If one wants to level the world labor market in respect to costs, one
must lower the United States labor costs to Third World levels.

No one wants to level the world market. They want the low-wage countries to
make the goods, and the high-wage countries to buy them. That's how one
makes the most profit.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 2, 9:53*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
posting stripped to RCM only

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Mar 27, 9:27 am, reinhardt wrote:

On Mar 24, 5:15 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The jury is out on this one....

What do you think?

TMT

Recession is a given. Can we avoid depression?

Why avoid one when that was desired goal to begin with?

Do you know how financially reasonable depression labor is?
Actually your comment does make sense.

No it doesn't.

If one wants to level the world labor market in respect to costs, one
must lower the United States labor costs to Third World levels.

No one wants to level the world market. They want the low-wage countries to
make the goods, and the high-wage countries to buy them. That's how one
makes the most profit.

--
Ed Huntress

There are other countries that will buy goods...have you noticed how
companies are falling over each other to sell to China?

The United States is quickly running out of money...and credit.

No money or credit...no buying of goods.

The United States is becoming the cheapest place to produce.

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 9:53 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
posting stripped to RCM only

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Mar 27, 9:27 am, reinhardt wrote:

On Mar 24, 5:15 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The jury is out on this one....

What do you think?

TMT

Recession is a given. Can we avoid depression?

Why avoid one when that was desired goal to begin with?

Do you know how financially reasonable depression labor is?
Actually your comment does make sense.

No it doesn't.

If one wants to level the world labor market in respect to costs, one
must lower the United States labor costs to Third World levels.

No one wants to level the world market. They want the low-wage countries
to
make the goods, and the high-wage countries to buy them. That's how one
makes the most profit.

--
Ed Huntress

There are other countries that will buy goods...have you noticed how
companies are falling over each other to sell to China?

There are a lot of people in China, a tiny percentage of which can buy
expensive goods. But even a tiny percentage of 1.2 billion people is a lot
of customers. This is what businesses have been anticipating for a long
time. Meanwhile, the West is China's export market, and its entire economy
still hinges on exports.

The United States is quickly running out of money...and credit.

Really? I think you're engaging in wishful thinking and some confused
conclusions from the current financial troubles here, TMT. You're sounding
like the flip side of the right-wing nutbags. The US will continue to be a
large market for low-wage countries.

No money or credit...no buying of goods.

The United States is becoming the cheapest place to produce.

Having covered this topic for some decades as a magazine reporter, I can
tell you that the US was the cheapest place to produce advanced machine
tools, for example, as far back as the early '90s. It's also been the
cheapest place to produce top-tier cars (ones that meet Western quality
standards) for about the same length of time. (Korea probably holds that
title now.) That's because we have the most productive manufacturing economy
in the world. As of five years ago (I haven't checked current figures), we
were roughly ten times as productive as China, for example.

Before you drink the Kool-Aid with the Chicken Little brigade, you should
spend more time with the numbers, and less time with the doomsday stories
written by fairly ignorant reporters in the general press.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:13:09 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Having covered this topic for some decades as a magazine reporter, I can
tell you that the US was the cheapest place to produce advanced machine
tools, for example, as far back as the early '90s. It's also been the
cheapest place to produce top-tier cars (ones that meet Western quality
standards) for about the same length of time. (Korea probably holds that
title now.) That's because we have the most productive manufacturing economy
in the world. As of five years ago (I haven't checked current figures), we
were roughly ten times as productive as China, for example.
snip
====================
Thanks for verifying data I had collected on the micro level some
time back [early to mid 90s], at several companies/divisions
making truck/automotive components. I thought that what I
observed and heard in the staff meetings was an isolated
aberration.

As incredible as it may seem, it appears that much of the job
outsourcing/off-shoring was not so much to save money as efforts
by "management" to "get back at" their workers [in my three
cases, 1 union and 2 non-union shops] for making too much money,
for causing problems by filing wage/OT and discrimination claims,
etc.

FWIW -- the 3 companies/divisions with which I was directly
involved nearly went bankrupt after major off-shoring [mainly
quality/deliver and warranty issues] and were "saved" only when
their major competitor purchased them. Within 3 years the major
competitor filed chapter 11, and is still in the process of
reorganization. The "management" is now on the street [or
working at Walmart] along with the displaced workers.


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, 03 Apr 2008 09:56:33 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, F.
George McDuffee quickly quoth:

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:13:09 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Having covered this topic for some decades as a magazine reporter, I can
tell you that the US was the cheapest place to produce advanced machine
tools, for example, as far back as the early '90s. It's also been the
cheapest place to produce top-tier cars (ones that meet Western quality
standards) for about the same length of time. (Korea probably holds that
title now.) That's because we have the most productive manufacturing economy
in the world. As of five years ago (I haven't checked current figures), we
were roughly ten times as productive as China, for example.
snip
====================
Thanks for verifying data I had collected on the micro level some
time back [early to mid 90s], at several companies/divisions
making truck/automotive components. I thought that what I
observed and heard in the staff meetings was an isolated
aberration.

As incredible as it may seem, it appears that much of the job
outsourcing/off-shoring was not so much to save money as efforts
by "management" to "get back at" their workers [in my three
cases, 1 union and 2 non-union shops] for making too much money,
for causing problems by filing wage/OT and discrimination claims,
etc.

That's another reason I just love unions. They, and/or the employees,
turn into the tyrants they're trying to get out from under.


FWIW -- the 3 companies/divisions with which I was directly
involved nearly went bankrupt after major off-shoring [mainly
quality/deliver and warranty issues] and were "saved" only when
their major competitor purchased them. Within 3 years the major
competitor filed chapter 11, and is still in the process of
reorganization.

Interesting!


The "management" is now on the street [or
working at Walmart] along with the displaced workers.

It's too bad we can't say that of the union officials.

--
That man is the richest whose pleasures are the cheapest.
-- Henry David Thoreau

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:13:09 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Having covered this topic for some decades as a magazine reporter, I can
tell you that the US was the cheapest place to produce advanced machine
tools, for example, as far back as the early '90s. It's also been the
cheapest place to produce top-tier cars (ones that meet Western quality
standards) for about the same length of time. (Korea probably holds that
title now.) That's because we have the most productive manufacturing
economy
in the world. As of five years ago (I haven't checked current figures), we
were roughly ten times as productive as China, for example.
snip
====================
Thanks for verifying data I had collected on the micro level some
time back [early to mid 90s], at several companies/divisions
making truck/automotive components. I thought that what I
observed and heard in the staff meetings was an isolated
aberration.

As incredible as it may seem, it appears that much of the job
outsourcing/off-shoring was not so much to save money as efforts
by "management" to "get back at" their workers [in my three
cases, 1 union and 2 non-union shops] for making too much money,
for causing problems by filing wage/OT and discrimination claims,
etc.

I suspect this varies by industry and perhaps by company, George. It's clear
that many of the offshoring operations are intended to save money -- often
lots of money -- by using cheap labor, low embedded supply costs, and a
freewheeling, largely uncontrolled attitude towards environmental costs.

To say that China has 1/10 the productivity as the US means that they use 10
times as many labor hours to produce a given value of product. This is
partly a legacy of the outrageous practices of the state-run businesses that
preceded the current crop of private ones; one way to keep unemployment down
is to hire 10 times as many people as you need, and that seems to have been
the pattern. The tradition dies hard. And, of course, low labor costs and a
legacy of poor capital development has left China with an overhang of poor
productivity. Productivity, first, depends on having productive machinery
and equipment. Finally, their productivity figure suffers because the output
is measured in dollars of goods or services sold. They make cheaper
products, so they wind up with a lower productivity figure.

But even with 10 times as much labor used for each dollar value of output,
total production costs in China are still extremely low. We talk about that
$0.80/hour wage -- I contributed to selecting that average in a series of
articles I wrote around five years ago -- but the fact is that
shoe-assemblers in China's interior were then making $0.17/hour. And the
official minimum wage, widely ignored, was then (2003) $0.32/hour.

Some of the early offshoring was a product of companies not wanting to miss
the ship that everyone thought was sailing for good. So there was an
overexuberance of offshoring, some of which has been pulled back.
Nonetheless, China remains the low-cost producer. Their costs are climbing
fast but so is their productivity.

FWIW -- the 3 companies/divisions with which I was directly
involved nearly went bankrupt after major off-shoring [mainly
quality/deliver and warranty issues] and were "saved" only when
their major competitor purchased them. Within 3 years the major
competitor filed chapter 11, and is still in the process of
reorganization. The "management" is now on the street [or
working at Walmart] along with the displaced workers.

Globalization sometime bites the hand that feeds it. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:04:15 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:13:09 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Having covered this topic for some decades as a magazine reporter, I can
tell you that the US was the cheapest place to produce advanced machine
tools, for example, as far back as the early '90s. It's also been the
cheapest place to produce top-tier cars (ones that meet Western quality
standards) for about the same length of time. (Korea probably holds that
title now.) That's because we have the most productive manufacturing
economy
in the world. As of five years ago (I haven't checked current figures), we
were roughly ten times as productive as China, for example.
snip
====================
Thanks for verifying data I had collected on the micro level some
time back [early to mid 90s], at several companies/divisions
making truck/automotive components. I thought that what I
observed and heard in the staff meetings was an isolated
aberration.

As incredible as it may seem, it appears that much of the job
outsourcing/off-shoring was not so much to save money as efforts
by "management" to "get back at" their workers [in my three
cases, 1 union and 2 non-union shops] for making too much money,
for causing problems by filing wage/OT and discrimination claims,
etc.

I suspect this varies by industry and perhaps by company, George. It's clear
that many of the offshoring operations are intended to save money -- often
lots of money -- by using cheap labor, low embedded supply costs, and a
freewheeling, largely uncontrolled attitude towards environmental costs.

To say that China has 1/10 the productivity as the US means that they use 10
times as many labor hours to produce a given value of product. This is
partly a legacy of the outrageous practices of the state-run businesses that
preceded the current crop of private ones; one way to keep unemployment down
is to hire 10 times as many people as you need, and that seems to have been
the pattern. The tradition dies hard. And, of course, low labor costs and a
legacy of poor capital development has left China with an overhang of poor
productivity. Productivity, first, depends on having productive machinery
and equipment. Finally, their productivity figure suffers because the output
is measured in dollars of goods or services sold. They make cheaper
products, so they wind up with a lower productivity figure.

But even with 10 times as much labor used for each dollar value of output,
total production costs in China are still extremely low. We talk about that
$0.80/hour wage -- I contributed to selecting that average in a series of
articles I wrote around five years ago -- but the fact is that
shoe-assemblers in China's interior were then making $0.17/hour. And the
official minimum wage, widely ignored, was then (2003) $0.32/hour.

Some of the early offshoring was a product of companies not wanting to miss
the ship that everyone thought was sailing for good. So there was an
overexuberance of offshoring, some of which has been pulled back.
Nonetheless, China remains the low-cost producer. Their costs are climbing
fast but so is their productivity.

I asked the owner of a company with head office in HK (costs 10x that
of China, more expensive than most of the US) how the productivity of
his China workers (factory near Shanghai) compared with HK workers. He
said it was *higher*-- in terms of parts per hour, not dollars per
hour. That's the equation for a business owner looking to outsource,
not the macroeconomic numbers.
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

On Apr 3, 5:13*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Apr 2, 9:53 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:





posting stripped to RCM only

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Mar 27, 9:27 am, reinhardt wrote:

On Mar 24, 5:15 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The jury is out on this one....

What do you think?

TMT

Recession is a given. Can we avoid depression?

Why avoid one when that was desired goal to begin with?

Do you know how financially reasonable depression labor is?
Actually your comment does make sense.

No it doesn't.

If one wants to level the world labor market in respect to costs, one
must lower the United States labor costs to Third World levels.

No one wants to level the world market. They want the low-wage countries
to
make the goods, and the high-wage countries to buy them. That's how one
makes the most profit.

--
Ed Huntress
There are other countries that will buy goods...have you noticed how
companies are falling over each other to sell to China?

There are a lot of people in China, a tiny percentage of which can buy
expensive goods. But even a tiny percentage of 1.2 billion people is a lot
of customers. This is what businesses have been anticipating for a long
time. Meanwhile, the West is China's export market, and its entire economy
still hinges on exports.

The United States is quickly running out of money...and credit.

Really? I think you're engaging in wishful thinking and some confused
conclusions from the current financial troubles here, TMT. You're sounding
like the flip side of the right-wing nutbags. The US will continue to be a
large market for low-wage countries.

No money or credit...no buying of goods.
The United States is becoming the cheapest place to produce.

Having covered this topic for some decades as a magazine reporter, I can
tell you that the US was the cheapest place to produce advanced machine
tools, for example, as far back as the early '90s. It's also been the
cheapest place to produce top-tier cars (ones that meet Western quality
standards) for about the same length of time. (Korea probably holds that
title now.) That's because we have the most productive manufacturing economy
in the world. As of five years ago (I haven't checked current figures), we
were roughly ten times as productive as China, for example.

Before you drink the Kool-Aid with the Chicken Little brigade, you should
spend more time with the numbers, and less time with the doomsday stories
written by fairly ignorant reporters in the general press.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I disagree Ed.

If we are so productive, then why are the jobs leaving the country?

If we are so productive, then why has so much of our manufacturing
infrastructure been moved offshore?

I would suggest looking at the national debt, the rate of lending that
the Feds doing and the loss of housing equity and then get back to me
as to how much money/credit this country still has.

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Apr 3, 5:13 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Apr 2, 9:53 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:





posting stripped to RCM only

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Mar 27, 9:27 am, reinhardt wrote:

On Mar 24, 5:15 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The jury is out on this one....

What do you think?

TMT

Recession is a given. Can we avoid depression?

Why avoid one when that was desired goal to begin with?

Do you know how financially reasonable depression labor is?
Actually your comment does make sense.

No it doesn't.

If one wants to level the world labor market in respect to costs, one
must lower the United States labor costs to Third World levels.

No one wants to level the world market. They want the low-wage countries
to
make the goods, and the high-wage countries to buy them. That's how one
makes the most profit.

--
Ed Huntress
There are other countries that will buy goods...have you noticed how
companies are falling over each other to sell to China?

There are a lot of people in China, a tiny percentage of which can buy
expensive goods. But even a tiny percentage of 1.2 billion people is a lot
of customers. This is what businesses have been anticipating for a long
time. Meanwhile, the West is China's export market, and its entire economy
still hinges on exports.

The United States is quickly running out of money...and credit.

Really? I think you're engaging in wishful thinking and some confused
conclusions from the current financial troubles here, TMT. You're sounding
like the flip side of the right-wing nutbags. The US will continue to be a
large market for low-wage countries.

No money or credit...no buying of goods.
The United States is becoming the cheapest place to produce.

Having covered this topic for some decades as a magazine reporter, I can
tell you that the US was the cheapest place to produce advanced machine
tools, for example, as far back as the early '90s. It's also been the
cheapest place to produce top-tier cars (ones that meet Western quality
standards) for about the same length of time. (Korea probably holds that
title now.) That's because we have the most productive manufacturing
economy
in the world. As of five years ago (I haven't checked current figures), we
were roughly ten times as productive as China, for example.

Before you drink the Kool-Aid with the Chicken Little brigade, you should
spend more time with the numbers, and less time with the doomsday stories
written by fairly ignorant reporters in the general press.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I disagree Ed.

If we are so productive, then why are the jobs leaving the country?

Because we may be the most productive, but we aren't the cheapest. They are
two different things. Productivity is a measure of the dollar (or other
currency) value of output per labor hour. Cheapness is a measure of how much
one has to pay to get something made. If you're Reebock and you can get
running shoes assembled in the interior of China for $0.17/hour, you don't
care if they only get 1/10th the productivity of US workers, or even 1/20th.

If we are so productive, then why has so much of our manufacturing
infrastructure been moved offshore?

See above.

I would suggest looking at the national debt, the rate of lending that
the Feds doing and the loss of housing equity and then get back to me
as to how much money/credit this country still has.


You can't draw a conclusion about how much money or credit we have from that
information, TMT. As for our national debt, as a percentage of our GDP it is
less than that of Japan, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, France,
Germany, and about 60 other countries. You'll have to define what
constitutes "lending," in your view, by the Fed before we can address that
question. Regarding housing equity, the bubble of exuberance is getting a
haircut and probably will decline to something closer to housing's true
replacement value.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 3, 10:49*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Apr 3, 5:13 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:





"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Apr 2, 9:53 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

posting stripped to RCM only

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

....
On Mar 27, 9:27 am, reinhardt wrote:

On Mar 24, 5:15 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The jury is out on this one....

What do you think?

TMT

Recession is a given. Can we avoid depression?

Why avoid one when that was desired goal to begin with?

Do you know how financially reasonable depression labor is?
Actually your comment does make sense.

No it doesn't.

If one wants to level the world labor market in respect to costs, one
must lower the United States labor costs to Third World levels.

No one wants to level the world market. They want the low-wage countries
to
make the goods, and the high-wage countries to buy them. That's how one
makes the most profit.

--
Ed Huntress
There are other countries that will buy goods...have you noticed how
companies are falling over each other to sell to China?

There are a lot of people in China, a tiny percentage of which can buy
expensive goods. But even a tiny percentage of 1.2 billion people is a lot
of customers. This is what businesses have been anticipating for a long
time. Meanwhile, the West is China's export market, and its entire economy
still hinges on exports.

The United States is quickly running out of money...and credit.

Really? I think you're engaging in wishful thinking and some confused
conclusions from the current financial troubles here, TMT. You're sounding
like the flip side of the right-wing nutbags. The US will continue to be a
large market for low-wage countries.

No money or credit...no buying of goods.
The United States is becoming the cheapest place to produce.

Having covered this topic for some decades as a magazine reporter, I can
tell you that the US was the cheapest place to produce advanced machine
tools, for example, as far back as the early '90s. It's also been the
cheapest place to produce top-tier cars (ones that meet Western quality
standards) for about the same length of time. (Korea probably holds that
title now.) That's because we have the most productive manufacturing
economy
in the world. As of five years ago (I haven't checked current figures), we
were roughly ten times as productive as China, for example.

Before you drink the Kool-Aid with the Chicken Little brigade, you should
spend more time with the numbers, and less time with the doomsday stories
written by fairly ignorant reporters in the general press.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I disagree Ed.
If we are so productive, then why are the jobs leaving the country?

Because we may be the most productive, but we aren't the cheapest. They are
two different things. Productivity is a measure of the dollar (or other
currency) value of output per labor hour. Cheapness is a measure of how much
one has to pay to get something made. If you're Reebock and you can get
running shoes assembled in the interior of China for $0.17/hour, you don't
care if they only get 1/10th the productivity of US workers, or even 1/20th.

If we are so productive, then why has so much of our manufacturing
infrastructure been moved offshore?

See above.

I would suggest looking at the national debt, the rate of lending that
the Feds doing and the loss of housing equity and then get back to me
as to how much money/credit this country still has.

You can't draw a conclusion about how much money or credit we have from that
information, TMT. As for our national debt, as a percentage of our GDP it is
less than that of Japan, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, France,
Germany, and about 60 other countries. You'll have to define what
constitutes "lending," in your view, by the Fed before we can address that
question. Regarding housing equity, the bubble of exuberance is getting a
haircut and probably will decline to something closer to housing's true
replacement value.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You can't draw a conclusion about how much money or credit we have from that
information, TMT.

Yes you can...we have less...much less.

Please note where the American dollar compares to the other world
currencies...that is the measure of trust the rest of the world (who
makes most of what we use and holds the markers to our debt).

It doesn't matter what the rest of the world is doing in regards to
debt...we don't owe that debt.

As for symatics, it matters little.

What matters is that the United States is a debtor nation, with a
significant amount of its manufacturing base offshore, significantly
dependent on foreign energy and its assets devaluing substantially.

This has happened under this Administration. and from every poll I
have seen the American people will be going to the polls in November
with change on their mind.

TMT

I disagree Ed.

If we are so productive, then why are the jobs leaving the country?

Because we may be the most productive, but we aren't the cheapest. They
are
two different things. Productivity is a measure of the dollar (or other
currency) value of output per labor hour. Cheapness is a measure of how
much
one has to pay to get something made. If you're Reebock and you can get
running shoes assembled in the interior of China for $0.17/hour, you don't
care if they only get 1/10th the productivity of US workers, or even
1/20th.

If we are so productive, then why has so much of our manufacturing
infrastructure been moved offshore?

See above.

I would suggest looking at the national debt, the rate of lending that
the Feds doing and the loss of housing equity and then get back to me
as to how much money/credit this country still has.


You can't draw a conclusion about how much money or credit we have from
that
information, TMT. As for our national debt, as a percentage of our GDP it
is
less than that of Japan, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, France,
Germany, and about 60 other countries. You'll have to define what
constitutes "lending," in your view, by the Fed before we can address that
question. Regarding housing equity, the bubble of exuberance is getting a
haircut and probably will decline to something closer to housing's true
replacement value.

--
Ed Huntress


It's also not a fair comparison to simply look at debt as a percentage of
GDP. You have to look at what a country is going into debt for. Has a
country made major inventments in the future or in its infrastructure? Has
it borrowed to make the country better? Or has it borrowed and gotten
nothing for it, like us. We have borrowed the entire cost of the Iraq war.
We have paid for none of it. That's bad debt. We owe a lot of money but have
nothing to show for it. So tell us what the other countries with higher debt
than the US went into hock for because one thing is for sure they didn't go
into debt for a war of choice.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
posting stripped to RCM only

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 27, 9:27 am, reinhardt wrote:
On Mar 24, 5:15 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The jury is out on this one....

What do you think?

TMT

Recession is a given. Can we avoid depression?

Why avoid one when that was desired goal to begin with?

Do you know how financially reasonable depression labor is?

Actually your comment does make sense.

No it doesn't.

If one wants to level the world labor market in respect to costs, one
must lower the United States labor costs to Third World levels.

No one wants to level the world market. They want the low-wage countries
to
make the goods, and the high-wage countries to buy them. That's how one
makes the most profit.

--
Ed Huntress


That's good thinking until the "high-wage" countries no longer have the
money to buy products due to no longer having high wage jobs, which went
overseas and are now done by low-wage workers. Who also aren't paid enough
money to buy the products. At that point it's uh oh, who's going to buy all
this stuff?


Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
posting stripped to RCM only

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 27, 9:27 am, reinhardt wrote:
On Mar 24, 5:15 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The jury is out on this one....

What do you think?

TMT

Recession is a given. Can we avoid depression?

Why avoid one when that was desired goal to begin with?

Do you know how financially reasonable depression labor is?

Actually your comment does make sense.

No it doesn't.

If one wants to level the world labor market in respect to costs, one
must lower the United States labor costs to Third World levels.

No one wants to level the world market. They want the low-wage countries
to
make the goods, and the high-wage countries to buy them. That's how one
makes the most profit.

--
Ed Huntress


That's good thinking until the "high-wage" countries no longer have the
money to buy products due to no longer having high wage jobs, which went
overseas and are now done by low-wage workers. Who also aren't paid enough
money to buy the products. At that point it's uh oh, who's going to buy
all
this stuff?


Hawke

Somebody else. The Chinese are looking around as we speak, but I doubt if
anyone will exceed the size of the US market for at least another decade.
Except, perhaps, the Chinese themselves. That will be a good thing when it
happens.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 3, 3:12*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message

...







"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
posting stripped to RCM only

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
....
On Mar 27, 9:27 am, reinhardt wrote:
On Mar 24, 5:15 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The jury is out on this one....

What do you think?

TMT

Recession is a given. Can we avoid depression?

Why avoid one when that was desired goal to begin with?

Do you know how financially reasonable depression labor is?

Actually your comment does make sense.

No it doesn't.

If one wants to level the world labor market in respect to costs, one
must lower the United States labor costs to Third World levels.

No one wants to level the world market. They want the low-wage countries
to
make the goods, and the high-wage countries to buy them. That's how one
makes the most profit.

--
Ed Huntress

That's good thinking until the "high-wage" countries no longer have the
money to buy products due to no longer having high wage jobs, which went
overseas and are now done by low-wage workers. Who also aren't paid enough
money to buy the products. At that point it's uh oh, who's going to buy
all
this stuff?

Hawke

Somebody else. The Chinese are looking around as we speak, but I doubt if
anyone will exceed the size of the US market for at least another decade.
Except, perhaps, the Chinese themselves. That will be a good thing when it
happens.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Euro is in demand for a reason.

The United States is the consumer it once was.

It likely will not be ever again...we have bills to pay and more
coming due.

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Apr 3, 3:12 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message

...







"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
posting stripped to RCM only

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 27, 9:27 am, reinhardt wrote:
On Mar 24, 5:15 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The jury is out on this one....

What do you think?

TMT

Recession is a given. Can we avoid depression?

Why avoid one when that was desired goal to begin with?

Do you know how financially reasonable depression labor is?

Actually your comment does make sense.

No it doesn't.

If one wants to level the world labor market in respect to costs, one
must lower the United States labor costs to Third World levels.

No one wants to level the world market. They want the low-wage
countries
to
make the goods, and the high-wage countries to buy them. That's how one
makes the most profit.

--
Ed Huntress

That's good thinking until the "high-wage" countries no longer have the
money to buy products due to no longer having high wage jobs, which went
overseas and are now done by low-wage workers. Who also aren't paid
enough
money to buy the products. At that point it's uh oh, who's going to buy
all
this stuff?

Hawke

Somebody else. The Chinese are looking around as we speak, but I doubt if
anyone will exceed the size of the US market for at least another decade.
Except, perhaps, the Chinese themselves. That will be a good thing when it
happens.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Euro is in demand for a reason.

Yup. It's riding high right now.

The United States is the consumer it once was.

You probably mean "isn't the consumer it once was." Unfortunately, that
isn't true, but it would be a good thing if it were.

It likely will not be ever again...we have bills to pay and more coming
due.

Dr. Gloom and Doom, we will get through it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
posting stripped to RCM only

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Mar 27, 9:27 am, reinhardt wrote:
On Mar 24, 5:15 pm, Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

The jury is out on this one....

What do you think?

TMT

Recession is a given. Can we avoid depression?

Why avoid one when that was desired goal to begin with?

Do you know how financially reasonable depression labor is?

Actually your comment does make sense.

No it doesn't.

If one wants to level the world labor market in respect to costs,
one
must lower the United States labor costs to Third World levels.

No one wants to level the world market. They want the low-wage
countries
to
make the goods, and the high-wage countries to buy them. That's how
one
makes the most profit.

--
Ed Huntress

That's good thinking until the "high-wage" countries no longer have
the
money to buy products due to no longer having high wage jobs, which
went
overseas and are now done by low-wage workers. Who also aren't paid
enough
money to buy the products. At that point it's uh oh, who's going to
buy
all
this stuff?

Hawke

Somebody else. The Chinese are looking around as we speak, but I doubt
if
anyone will exceed the size of the US market for at least another
decade.
Except, perhaps, the Chinese themselves. That will be a good thing when
it
happens.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Euro is in demand for a reason.

Yup. It's riding high right now.

The United States is the consumer it once was.

You probably mean "isn't the consumer it once was." Unfortunately, that
isn't true, but it would be a good thing if it were.

It likely will not be ever again...we have bills to pay and more coming
due.

Dr. Gloom and Doom, we will get through it.


Yes, we probably will. But we'll never be the same again. The US still
accounts for about a third of the world's economic output. It's down from
the highs and it's on a downward trajectory. The rest of the world is
catching up and we're on our way down to meet them. 30 year old men now make
less than their fathers did. The US is a declining power. That's just the
facts. Take away our military and we're not that big a deal anymore. At this
point all the military is doing for us is costing us money. We have no
global military threat but still are spending half a trillion a year
defending against threats that aren't there. Simultaneously we are engaging
in a war that is estimated by Nobel winning economist Joe Stiglitz to be
costing us three trillion dollars...at least. No wonder we're off our game.

Hawke