hawke sez:

"lots of drivel -- - - - - then: " . . . We dodged a close one, folks. Like they say,
imagine her a heartbeat away from the presidency."

I can no more imagine that than I can imagine hawke as a credible commentator on a metal working
newsgroup.

Bob Swinney

Precisely


"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
...

I can no more imagine that than I can imagine hawke as a credible
commentator on a metal working
newsgroup.

Bob Swinney

Sarah found a great job at Fox News, I think that this is what she
needed to do with her life in the first place. It took a presidential
race to get noticed. I expect it to be very happy with this particular
job, and she will probably be well paid and will attract a big audience.

i

"Ignoramus18223" wrote in message
...
Sarah found a great job at Fox News, I think that this is what she
needed to do with her life in the first place. It took a presidential
race to get noticed. I expect it to be very happy with this particular
job, and she will probably be well paid and will attract a big audience.

i

Watch her debut tonight, on O'Reilly! I can't wait. g

--
Ed Huntress

And if she should ever happen to report any metal prices, she may finally
have some minor relevance to a metalworking newsgroup.

--
WB
..........
metalworking projects
www.kwagmire.com/metal_proj.html


"Ignoramus18223" wrote in message
...
Sarah found a great job at Fox News, I think that this is what she
needed to do with her life in the first place. It took a presidential
race to get noticed. I expect it to be very happy with this particular
job, and she will probably be well paid and will attract a big audience.

i

Wild Bill sez:

"And if she should ever happen to report any metal prices, she may finally
have some minor relevance to a metalworking newsgroup."

Not liable to happen, Bill. No more than Hawkie is liable to stop running off with his political
observations on this metal
working newsgroup.

Bob (suffers no fools) Swinney

"Ignoramus18223" wrote in message
...
Sarah found a great job at Fox News, I think that this is what she
needed to do with her life in the first place. It took a presidential
race to get noticed. I expect it to be very happy with this particular
job, and she will probably be well paid and will attract a big audience.

i

Eh, it was disappointing. All that happened is that O'Reilly interviewed her
as if she were an honored guest.

Maybe she'll actually "analyze" something sooner or later. BTW, an Irish
oddsmaker is giving 8:1 that she'll be gone by Sept. 1st. g

--
Ed Huntress

On 2010-01-13, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus18223" wrote in message
...
Sarah found a great job at Fox News, I think that this is what she
needed to do with her life in the first place. It took a presidential
race to get noticed. I expect it to be very happy with this particular
job, and she will probably be well paid and will attract a big audience.

i

Eh, it was disappointing. All that happened is that O'Reilly interviewed her
as if she were an honored guest.

Maybe she'll actually "analyze" something sooner or later. BTW, an Irish
oddsmaker is giving 8:1 that she'll be gone by Sept. 1st. g


She will have helpers, I am sure, she will be a Republican media star
and will use a few actually intelligent people to give her ideas. But
I would not bet against any experienced oddsmakers.

i

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:45:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Ignoramus18223" wrote in message
m...
Sarah found a great job at Fox News, I think that this is what she
needed to do with her life in the first place. It took a presidential
race to get noticed. I expect it to be very happy with this particular
job, and she will probably be well paid and will attract a big audience.

i

Eh, it was disappointing. All that happened is that O'Reilly interviewed her
as if she were an honored guest.

That was predictable. She has some BS lines to spout, but sustaining
that is well beyond her capabilities. She could try a partial lobotomy
and then she might be able to master the Glenn Beck M.O.

Maybe she'll actually "analyze" something sooner or later.

If she ever does it will be in very limited spurts.

BTW, an Irish
oddsmaker is giving 8:1 that she'll be gone by Sept. 1st. g

I can see that. I'm thinkin' that the only reason she's doing TV at
all is because the price is dropping on her speaking engagements. More
exposure in her case equals dwindling interest and more exposure etc.
Her fans might like her to use that pseudo-celebrity technique of
calling up the paps, and then exiting a vehicle pantyless. But if she
goes on this show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqi0DwNLJdM even I'll
watch.

Wayne

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:00:33 -0600, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

hawke sez:

"lots of drivel -- - - - - then: " . . . We dodged a close one, folks. Like they say,
imagine her a heartbeat away from the presidency."

I can no more imagine that than I can imagine hawke as a credible commentator on a metal working
newsgroup.

Bob Swinney
=============
Perhaps the reporting is getting better, but these "near misses"
seem to be occurring more frequently and getting closer all the
time.

Given that it is only a matter of time before we as a nation have
a [financial] Katrina sweep in, it would appear that putting
plywood on the windows and bringing the lawn chairs and trash
cans inside would be a smart move. For example, what sort of
contingency plans are we making governmentally, corporate and
personal for when another Iceland occurs, e.g. Greece, Ireland,
Spain, or even Japan.

Instead it is business as usual only bigger and better. The
Current Accounts Trade Deficit is back up, with a little pencil
work the banks are reporting record profits, and the U.S. Federal
bond sales are going well.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:00:33 -0600, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

hawke sez:

"lots of drivel -- - - - - then: " . . . We dodged a close one, folks. Like they say,
imagine her a heartbeat away from the presidency."

I can no more imagine that than I can imagine hawke as a credible commentator on a metal working
newsgroup.

Bob Swinney
=============
Perhaps the reporting is getting better, but these "near misses"
seem to be occurring more frequently and getting closer all the
time.

Given that it is only a matter of time before we as a nation have
a [financial] Katrina sweep in, it would appear that putting
plywood on the windows and bringing the lawn chairs and trash
cans inside would be a smart move. For example, what sort of
contingency plans are we making governmentally, corporate and
personal for when another Iceland occurs, e.g. Greece, Ireland,
Spain, or even Japan.

Instead it is business as usual only bigger and better. The
Current Accounts Trade Deficit is back up, with a little pencil
work the banks are reporting record profits, and the U.S. Federal
bond sales are going well.


And there lies the inherent flaw in conservatism. You keep doing what
you are doing until it stops working. It's like the people of Haiti
cutting down their trees for firewood until there are no trees left. You
just do it until you can't do it any more and are forced to change. That
is what we've been doing in this country ever since Reagan was elected.
We are not looking ahead, we are not planning, we are not preparing for
a world that is different from the one we now live in. That is the
essence of conservatism.

In the financial world they have done the same thing for decades. It has
made them lots of money. They will keep doing what they have done in the
past until it fails. Unless someone steps in and forces the changes. We
let our manufacturing go. We let the market make our decisions for us.
We let the corporations and the wealthy take control of the government.
Now we have to live with that until things come to a halt. I was kind of
hoping that Obama would be the guy who sees what's happening and would
turn us in a different direction. His escalating the war in Afghanistan
has made me think otherwise. So we will continue with our conservative
ways of not changing until we have to or we start looking ahead and
planning for the future. It used to be you could get away with letting
things happen on their own. I don't think that strategy is going to do
us much good from here on out. It's too bad that our history is one
where we react instead of planning ahead. It looks like change is not
something that is really going to happen unless things really break
down. I hope I'm gone before it happens.

Hawke

On Jan 14, 8:36*pm, Hawke wrote:


And there lies the inherent flaw in conservatism. You keep doing what
you are doing until it stops working. It's like the people of Haiti
cutting down their trees for firewood until there are no trees left. You
just do it until you can't do it any more and are forced to change. That
is what we've been doing in this country ever since Reagan was elected.
We are not looking ahead, we are not planning, we are not preparing for
a world that is different from the one we now live in. That is the
essence of conservatism.

In the financial world they have done the same thing for decades. It has
made them lots of money. They will keep doing what they have done in the
past until it fails. Unless someone steps in and forces the changes. We
let our manufacturing go. We let the market make our decisions for us.
We let the corporations and the wealthy take control of the government.
Now we have to live with that until things come to a halt. I was kind of
hoping that Obama would be the guy who sees what's happening and would
turn us in a different direction. His escalating the war in Afghanistan
has made me think otherwise. So we will continue with our conservative
ways of not changing until we have to or we start looking ahead and
planning for the future. It used to be you could get away with letting
things happen on their own. I don't think that strategy is going to do
us much good from here on out. It's too bad that our history is one
where we react instead of planning ahead. It looks like change is not
something that is really going to happen unless things really break
down. I hope I'm gone before it happens.

Hawke

There are two ways to do planning. One is to have really smart people
in the government do the planning. Which means you have one plan and
it had better work.

The other way is to allow everyone to do the planning. Which means
you have thousands of plans which are always being revised. You also
have all the stupid people doing planning, but this is offset by the
fact that you have all the brilliant people doing planning too.

Dan

There are two ways to do planning. One is to have really smart people
in the government do the planning. Which means you have one plan and
it had better work.

The other way is to allow everyone to do the planning. Which means
you have thousands of plans which are always being revised. You also
have all the stupid people doing planning, but this is offset by the
fact that you have all the brilliant people doing planning too.

Dan


The problem is that when you let everyone do the planning it never
works. It's chaos. When you allow the smartest people to do the planning
they don't always get it right either. But at least you have a better
chance than if you let everyone get in on the planning. It's like being
in a football huddle. You let the quarterback call the plays. They don't
always work. Most of the time they don't. But it's a lot better than
having everyone in the huddle fighting over what to do.

Hawke

On Jan 15, 10:47*pm, Hawke wrote:

The problem is that when you let everyone do the planning it never
works. It's chaos. When you allow the smartest people to do the planning
they don't always get it right either. But at least you have a better
chance than if you let everyone get in on the planning. It's like being
in a football huddle. You let the quarterback call the plays. They don't
always work. Most of the time they don't. But it's a lot better than
having everyone in the huddle fighting over what to do.

Hawke

Actually it works very well in a chaotic way. The smartest and
luckiest do well. You have companies as Amazon, Ebay, Facebook,
Microsoft, Intel doing really well. Even in industries as steel you
have companies as Nucor going from essentially bankrupt to producing
more steel than any other company. And then there are some like T.
Bone Pickens making a big play on wind energy and being killed by
companies as Chesapeake Energy figuring out ways to get more natural
gas out of the ground.

Your analogy of a football team is has some merit. But closer is the
football leagues. Multiple teams competing with each other. Each
trying to out do the others.

Dan

On 2010-01-16, wrote:
On Jan 15, 10:47?pm, Hawke wrote:

The problem is that when you let everyone do the planning it never
works. It's chaos. When you allow the smartest people to do the planning

Actually it works very well in a chaotic way. The smartest and
luckiest do well. You have companies as Amazon, Ebay, Facebook,
Microsoft, Intel doing really well. Even in industries as steel you

Competition and free allocation of capital works very well in most
areas. For example, I can compare various lawn mowing persons and hire
the one who gives me best service for money.

Same applies to most products and industries.

Where competition and free market allocation does not work, without
regulation, falls into three areas.

1. Where quality of product is not obvious to consumer and needs to be
regulated. For example, milk sold in stores is regulated as to its fat
content, expiration day, etc. Another example of many, is gasoline. If
stores could cheat and sell adulterated products, they would, and it
would be difficult to see real competition, and the public would be
hurt.

2. Financial activities that lead to creation of money, such as
fractional reserve banking in all forms, leads to regular economic
disruptions of large magnitude (think of bank panics).

3. Activities where large costs are externalized and borne by the
public in general. Typical example is industries that dump their
wastes and pollute environment. Without regulation, we would live in a
world like China (search "china environment" in Google Images).

Item number 1 is the most controversial and its proper treatment is
far from simple.

i

On Jan 16, 3:52*am, Ignoramus28589 ignoramus28...@NOSPAM.
28589.invalid wrote:



Where competition and free market allocation does not work, without
regulation, falls into three areas.

i

I agree. You do need laws and regulation. But government
planning..........not so much. Around here I see lots of PV solar
panels. Not economical without large government subsidies.


Dan

On Jan 15, 10:52*pm, Ignoramus28589 ignoramus28...@NOSPAM.
28589.invalid wrote:
...

Where competition and free market allocation does not work, without
regulation, falls into three areas.
...
i

Ironically when Russia abandoned centrally planned Communism they
reverted to the abuse-prone laissez-faire capitalism that incited
Marx. I suggested that they buy a license for the laws of some partly
socialist nation like Denmark as a starting point.

jsw

The problem is that when you let everyone do the planning it never
works. It's chaos. When you allow the smartest people to do the planning
Actually it works very well in a chaotic way. The smartest and
luckiest do well. You have companies as Amazon, Ebay, Facebook,
Microsoft, Intel doing really well. Even in industries as steel you

Competition and free allocation of capital works very well in most
areas. For example, I can compare various lawn mowing persons and hire
the one who gives me best service for money.

Same applies to most products and industries.

Where competition and free market allocation does not work, without
regulation, falls into three areas.

1. Where quality of product is not obvious to consumer and needs to be
regulated. For example, milk sold in stores is regulated as to its fat
content, expiration day, etc. Another example of many, is gasoline. If
stores could cheat and sell adulterated products, they would, and it
would be difficult to see real competition, and the public would be
hurt.

2. Financial activities that lead to creation of money, such as
fractional reserve banking in all forms, leads to regular economic
disruptions of large magnitude (think of bank panics).

3. Activities where large costs are externalized and borne by the
public in general. Typical example is industries that dump their
wastes and pollute environment. Without regulation, we would live in a
world like China (search "china environment" in Google Images).

Item number 1 is the most controversial and its proper treatment is
far from simple.

i


Good points. But the problem seems to me to be that aside from a few
isolated places there really isn't a free market anywhere. Every country
interferes in the market to some degree. Some do it sparingly and some
are into it fully. That is the world market, a place where there is no
level playing ground. Whether it's oil cartels, a monopoly on diamonds,
dictatorships with command economies, or countries with protected
markets, it all adds up to a worldwide system that is anything but a
"free market" system. Everything is under someone's control.

Besides that the free market theory is an 18th century idea and last
time I looked it's the 21st century. Things have changed and the free
market is not keeping up with the modern world. It's about time we
produce a modern theory to replace it with. It had its day and now it's
over. All you have to do is look around the world and you will find that
where so called free markets exist the people are not prosperous. A
select few are very wealthy but the majority do not do well. Case in
point, take Mexico. As far as I know Mexico has a capitalistic, free
market system. Corrupt, but a free market. I just heard yesterday that
2/3 of their stock market capitalization is made up of companies all
under the control of one man, Carlos Slim, the richest man in the
country. Mexico also has a lot of billionaires. If you look at the rest
of the nations that are "free market" systems you see the same pattern.
Maybe not as severe but the same thing in general. The majority of the
people are not very well off and a rich elite own everything. Hey, just
like the U.S. So I guess all free market countries are like that. I
think if we try we can come up with something that doesn't distribute
the wealth quite so unfairly.

Hawke

On Jan 17, 7:44*am, Hawke wrote:


Besides that the free market theory is an 18th century idea and last
time I looked it's the 21st century. Things have changed and the free
market is not keeping up with the modern world. It's about time we
produce a modern theory to replace it with.

Come up with a modern theory to replace it. We are all ears.


It had its day and now it's
over. All you have to do is look around the world and you will find that
where so called free markets exist the people are not prosperous. A
select few are very wealthy but the majority do not do well. Case in
point, take Mexico. As far as I know Mexico has a capitalistic, free
market system. Corrupt, but a free market. I just heard yesterday that
2/3 of their stock market capitalization is made up of companies all
under the control of one man, Carlos Slim, the richest man in the
country. Mexico also has a lot of billionaires. If you look at the rest
of the nations that are "free market" systems you see the same pattern.
Maybe not as severe but the same thing in general. The majority of the
people are not very well off and a rich elite own everything. Hey, just
like the U.S. So I guess all free market countries are like that. I
think if we try we can come up with something that doesn't distribute
the wealth quite so unfairly.

Hawke

Try looking at

http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx

It ranks Mexico as number 49 as far as being a free market. The top
15 are as shown below. All places that are generally prosperous.

1 Hong Kong 90.0 +0.3
2 Singapore 87.1 -0.2
3 Australia 82.6 +0.4
4 Ireland 82.2 -0.3
5 New Zealand 82.0 +1.2
6 United States 80.7 -0.3
7 Canada 80.5 +0.3
8 Denmark 79.6 +0.4
9 Switzerland 79.4 -0.1
10 United Kingdom 79.0 -0.5
11 Chile 78.3 -0.3
12 Netherlands 77.0 -0.4
13 Estonia 76.4 -1.5
14 Iceland 75.9 +0.1 7
15 Luxembourg 75.2 +0.5

Dan