kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business

In article ,
Ignoramus21954 wrote:

kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/business/global/08rail.html?src=me&ref=business

Yes. Given how dysfunctional California has become, it's hard to imagine that
this will come to anything.

Although the article doesn't mention it, I also assume that the Chinese underbid
the French TGV.

Joe Gwinn

Ignoramus21954 wrote:
kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business

"G.E. estimates that the United States will spend $13 billion in the next
five years on high-speed rail routes. China, with a much more ambitious
infrastructure program, will spend $300 billion in the next three years on
overall expansion of its rail routes, mainly high-speed routes, according to
G.E. "

This is another reminder of the costs of protecting the carbon based energy
industry. China will spend $300 million on their infrastructure and we'll
spend an equal amount, much more really, on tax subsidized petroleum
products and ethanol.
Cheap gasoline is producing intellectual, technological, and industrial
poverty while simultaneously subsidizing ME oil producers.

It's a shame, and shameful.
How embarrasing.

--
John R. Carroll

John R. Carroll wrote:
Ignoramus21954 wrote:
kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business

"G.E. estimates that the United States will spend $13 billion in the next
five years on high-speed rail routes. China, with a much more ambitious
infrastructure program, will spend $300 billion in the next three years on
overall expansion of its rail routes, mainly high-speed routes, according to
G.E. "

Where the hell did California find $13 Billion ???

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus21954 wrote:
kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business

"G.E. estimates that the United States will spend $13 billion in the next
five years on high-speed rail routes. China, with a much more ambitious
infrastructure program, will spend $300 billion in the next three years on
overall expansion of its rail routes, mainly high-speed routes, according
to
G.E. "

This is another reminder of the costs of protecting the carbon based
energy
industry. China will spend $300 million on their infrastructure and we'll
spend an equal amount, much more really, on tax subsidized petroleum
products and ethanol.
Cheap gasoline is producing intellectual, technological, and industrial
poverty while simultaneously subsidizing ME oil producers.

It's a shame, and shameful.
How embarrasing.

--
John R. Carroll




i responded privately to someone about the "mars mission" thread mentioning
upgrading the u.s. rail system would be a better way to spend the money
they'd spend on a manned mission to mars.
or exploring the oceans.

b.w.

On Apr 9, 10:00*am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
RBnDFW wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:
Ignoramus21954 wrote:
kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...l.html?src=me&....



"G.E. estimates that the United States will spend $13 billion in the
next five years on high-speed rail routes. China, with a much more
ambitious infrastructure program, will spend $300 billion in the
next three years on overall expansion of its rail routes, mainly
high-speed routes, according to G.E. "

Where the hell did California find $13 Billion ???

$13 billion dolars is pretty modest for an economy the size of California's
but what the article says is that the amount spent BY THE ENTIRE COUNTRY
will be $13 billion and over five years, a trivial amount given that America
will be an $80 trillion *economy in the same period.

Bush spent $185 billion to bail out AIG, $30 billion on Bear Sterns, and
$700 billion on TARP.

As I said, this is a complete humiliation.

--
John R. Carroll

There's some slush in one of the monster bills for "high-speed rail"
in about 15 locales. It'll vanish into the pockets of various Beltway
Bandits for "studies" with some given to deserving Congresscritters
for their campaigns and nothing will get built. CO is supposedly one
area slated for it, you could probably give everyone in the state a
Lexus AND rebuild all the highway bridges for what they want to spend.

The problem with high-speed rail is that you need dedicated rail
lines, not freight-ways with passenger traffic on top. No private
company will fork out the bucks that's going to cost, just doing the
environmental studies would chew up billions. Return on investment is
iffy, too. The profits are in bulk freight, not passenger traffic.

Stan

RBnDFW wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:
Ignoramus21954 wrote:
kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business

"G.E. estimates that the United States will spend $13 billion in the
next five years on high-speed rail routes. China, with a much more
ambitious infrastructure program, will spend $300 billion in the
next three years on overall expansion of its rail routes, mainly
high-speed routes, according to G.E. "

Where the hell did California find $13 Billion ???

$13 billion dolars is pretty modest for an economy the size of California's
but what the article says is that the amount spent BY THE ENTIRE COUNTRY
will be $13 billion and over five years, a trivial amount given that America
will be an $80 trillion economy in the same period.

Bush spent $185 billion to bail out AIG, $30 billion on Bear Sterns, and
$700 billion on TARP.

As I said, this is a complete humiliation.

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
William Wixon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus21954 wrote:
kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business

"G.E. estimates that the United States will spend $13 billion in the
next five years on high-speed rail routes. China, with a much more
ambitious infrastructure program, will spend $300 billion in the
next three years on overall expansion of its rail routes, mainly
high-speed routes, according to
G.E. "

This is another reminder of the costs of protecting the carbon based
energy
industry. China will spend $300 million on their infrastructure and
we'll spend an equal amount, much more really, on tax subsidized
petroleum products and ethanol.
Cheap gasoline is producing intellectual, technological, and
industrial poverty while simultaneously subsidizing ME oil producers.

It's a shame, and shameful.
How embarrasing.




i responded privately to someone about the "mars mission" thread
mentioning upgrading the u.s. rail system would be a better way to
spend the money they'd spend on a manned mission to mars.
or exploring the oceans.


National Geographic did a program on what it would take to make Mars
habitable.
It's possible, but would take more than a hundred years while we waited of
running the hardware that would be necessary to generate an atmosphere and
rudimentary plant life to take hold. Doable, in other words, but hardly an
undertaking for a society of impatient's.
Congressional elections occur every two years.

On our present course we'd be preparing Mars for the Chinese.

--
John R. Carroll

And what would we have if we colonized it? Cleveland. We already have
Cleveland. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

National Geographic did a program on what it would take to make Mars
habitable.
It's possible, but would take more than a hundred years while we
waited of running the hardware that would be necessary to generate an
atmosphere and rudimentary plant life to take hold. Doable, in other
words, but hardly an undertaking for a society of impatient's.
Congressional elections occur every two years.

On our present course we'd be preparing Mars for the Chinese.

Since (under the present policies at any rate) the Chinese will be
picking up the tab, what's the downside?

After all, they're the ones who are exporting their population all around
the Pacific Rim already and would, most likely, jump at the chance to
provide the population for multiple Mars Colonies.

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

National Geographic did a program on what it would take to make Mars
habitable.
It's possible, but would take more than a hundred years while we
waited of running the hardware that would be necessary to generate
an atmosphere and rudimentary plant life to take hold. Doable, in
other words, but hardly an undertaking for a society of impatient's.
Congressional elections occur every two years.

On our present course we'd be preparing Mars for the Chinese.

Since (under the present policies at any rate) the Chinese will be
picking up the tab, what's the downside?

America would continue to look more and more like China in terms of
living standards.




That has been the goal of the Democrats since Lyndon Johnson became
President.

According to the party's leading economic theorists the reason for the
adverse Balance of Payments (imports higher than exports) was that, quite
simply, the US Standard of Living was too high and had to be reduced
BELOW that of the countries from whom the US imported goods. In this way
the US "consumer" (individual or corporation) could not afford to
purchase imported goods but other countries would eagerly purchase our
exports.

This theory matches what China has done: few, if any, imports other than
raw materials with many exports.

William Wixon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus21954 wrote:
kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business

"G.E. estimates that the United States will spend $13 billion in the
next five years on high-speed rail routes. China, with a much more
ambitious infrastructure program, will spend $300 billion in the
next three years on overall expansion of its rail routes, mainly
high-speed routes, according to
G.E. "

This is another reminder of the costs of protecting the carbon based
energy
industry. China will spend $300 million on their infrastructure and
we'll spend an equal amount, much more really, on tax subsidized
petroleum products and ethanol.
Cheap gasoline is producing intellectual, technological, and
industrial poverty while simultaneously subsidizing ME oil producers.

It's a shame, and shameful.
How embarrasing.




i responded privately to someone about the "mars mission" thread
mentioning upgrading the u.s. rail system would be a better way to
spend the money they'd spend on a manned mission to mars.
or exploring the oceans.


National Geographic did a program on what it would take to make Mars
habitable.
It's possible, but would take more than a hundred years while we waited of
running the hardware that would be necessary to generate an atmosphere and
rudimentary plant life to take hold. Doable, in other words, but hardly an
undertaking for a society of impatient's.
Congressional elections occur every two years.

On our present course we'd be preparing Mars for the Chinese.

--
John R. Carroll

John R. Carroll wrote:
RBnDFW wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:
Ignoramus21954 wrote:
kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business
"G.E. estimates that the United States will spend $13 billion in the
next five years on high-speed rail routes. China, with a much more
ambitious infrastructure program, will spend $300 billion in the
next three years on overall expansion of its rail routes, mainly
high-speed routes, according to G.E. "
Where the hell did California find $13 Billion ???

$13 billion dolars is pretty modest for an economy the size of California's
but what the article says is that the amount spent BY THE ENTIRE COUNTRY
will be $13 billion and over five years, a trivial amount given that America
will be an $80 trillion economy in the same period.

Bush spent $185 billion to bail out AIG, $30 billion on Bear Sterns, and
$700 billion on TARP.

As I said, this is a complete humiliation.


As Sen Dirksen once said "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon
you're talking real money"

wrote:
On Apr 9, 10:00 am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
RBnDFW wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:
Ignoramus21954 wrote:
kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not
build anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...l.html?src=me&...



"G.E. estimates that the United States will spend $13 billion in
the next five years on high-speed rail routes. China, with a much
more ambitious infrastructure program, will spend $300 billion in
the next three years on overall expansion of its rail routes,
mainly high-speed routes, according to G.E. "

Where the hell did California find $13 Billion ???

$13 billion dolars is pretty modest for an economy the size of
California's but what the article says is that the amount spent BY
THE ENTIRE COUNTRY will be $13 billion and over five years, a
trivial amount given that America will be an $80 trillion economy in
the same period.

Bush spent $185 billion to bail out AIG, $30 billion on Bear Sterns,
and $700 billion on TARP.

As I said, this is a complete humiliation.

There's some slush in one of the monster bills for "high-speed rail"
in about 15 locales. It'll vanish into the pockets of various Beltway
Bandits for "studies" with some given to deserving Congresscritters
for their campaigns and nothing will get built. CO is supposedly one
area slated for it, you could probably give everyone in the state a
Lexus AND rebuild all the highway bridges for what they want to spend.

Rebuilding America's highway infrastructure is a $1.5 trillion dollar deal,
and that was one of the lower estimates I've seen.
We ought to do that as well. In fact, we ought to have been doing it right
along.


The problem with high-speed rail is that you need dedicated rail
lines, not freight-ways with passenger traffic on top. No private
company will fork out the bucks that's going to cost, just doing the
environmental studies would chew up billions.

We have a bunch of private freeways here in California that cost more. They
were built as bonded projects, which always impressed me as being very
stupid. Public money funding private toll roads - sheesh.

Return on investment is
iffy, too. The profits are in bulk freight, not passenger traffic.

Sure they are if you only have a bulk freight rail systemG

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

National Geographic did a program on what it would take to make
Mars habitable.
It's possible, but would take more than a hundred years while we
waited of running the hardware that would be necessary to generate
an atmosphere and rudimentary plant life to take hold. Doable, in
other words, but hardly an undertaking for a society of
impatient's. Congressional elections occur every two years.

On our present course we'd be preparing Mars for the Chinese.

Since (under the present policies at any rate) the Chinese will be
picking up the tab, what's the downside?

America would continue to look more and more like China in terms of
living standards.




That has been the goal of the Democrats since Lyndon Johnson became
President.

According to the party's leading economic theorists the reason for
the adverse Balance of Payments (imports higher than exports) was
that, quite simply, the US Standard of Living was too high and had to
be reduced BELOW that of the countries from whom the US imported
goods. In this way the US "consumer" (individual or corporation)
could not afford to purchase imported goods but other countries would
eagerly purchase our exports.

I hadn't heard that one. We must be listening to and reading different
economic theorists.

You weren't paying much, if any, attention to the news media during the
'70s.

This was reported as the primary reason for the hyperinflation instigated
as n integral feature of LBJ's "Great Society".

Our manufacturing balance of trade with the Chinese is about a wash
right now and has been.

Manufacturing is only a small part - think "financial" and you'll see a
major imbalance.

In fact, if you take out imported oil, America is in OK condition in
the current accounts arena.

Dream on.

The Chinese have been buying a raw materials and high value add stuff
from us and we've been importing their crap.

What "stuff"? They've been doing most of their "shopping" in Europe.

That is obviously going to change if we can't bring our own high value
added capacity competitively - or in this case, at all.


What do we have left that they haven't already bought or stolen?


This theory matches what China has done: few, if any, imports other
than raw materials with many exports.

OK
Wrong and untrue, but Okie Dokey.

Ed Huntress wrote:

And what would we have if we colonized it?

Martian's!

Cleveland. We already have
Cleveland. d8-)

Yeah well, there is that and Cleveland has a lot of company these days.

--
John R. Carroll

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

National Geographic did a program on what it would take to make Mars
habitable.
It's possible, but would take more than a hundred years while we
waited of running the hardware that would be necessary to generate an
atmosphere and rudimentary plant life to take hold. Doable, in other
words, but hardly an undertaking for a society of impatient's.
Congressional elections occur every two years.

On our present course we'd be preparing Mars for the Chinese.

Since (under the present policies at any rate) the Chinese will be
picking up the tab, what's the downside?

America would continue to look more and more like China in terms of living
standards.



--
John R. Carroll

RBnDFW wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:
RBnDFW wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:
Ignoramus21954 wrote:
kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not
build anything due to the typical reasons.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business
"G.E. estimates that the United States will spend $13 billion in
the next five years on high-speed rail routes. China, with a much
more ambitious infrastructure program, will spend $300 billion in
the next three years on overall expansion of its rail routes,
mainly high-speed routes, according to G.E. "
Where the hell did California find $13 Billion ???

$13 billion dolars is pretty modest for an economy the size of
California's but what the article says is that the amount spent BY
THE ENTIRE COUNTRY will be $13 billion and over five years, a
trivial amount given that America will be an $80 trillion economy
in the same period.

Bush spent $185 billion to bail out AIG, $30 billion on Bear Sterns,
and $700 billion on TARP.

As I said, this is a complete humiliation.


As Sen Dirksen once said "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon
you're talking real money"

Penny wise and pound foolish is more appropriate.

--
John R. Carroll

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

National Geographic did a program on what it would take to make
Mars habitable.
It's possible, but would take more than a hundred years while we
waited of running the hardware that would be necessary to generate
an atmosphere and rudimentary plant life to take hold. Doable, in
other words, but hardly an undertaking for a society of
impatient's. Congressional elections occur every two years.

On our present course we'd be preparing Mars for the Chinese.

Since (under the present policies at any rate) the Chinese will be
picking up the tab, what's the downside?

America would continue to look more and more like China in terms of
living standards.




That has been the goal of the Democrats since Lyndon Johnson became
President.

According to the party's leading economic theorists the reason for the
adverse Balance of Payments (imports higher than exports) was that,
quite simply, the US Standard of Living was too high and had to be
reduced BELOW that of the countries from whom the US imported goods.
In this way the US "consumer" (individual or corporation) could not
afford to purchase imported goods but other countries would eagerly
purchase our exports.

I hadn't heard that one. We must be listening to and reading different
economic theorists.
Our manufacturing balance of trade with the Chinese is about a wash right
now and has been.
In fact, if you take out imported oil, America is in OK condition in the
current accounts arena.
The Chinese have been buying a raw materials and high value add stuff from
us and we've been importing their crap.
That is obviously going to change if we can't bring our own high value added
capacity competitively - or in this case, at all.


This theory matches what China has done: few, if any, imports other
than raw materials with many exports.

OK
Wrong and untrue, but Okie Dokey.

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

National Geographic did a program on what it would take to make
Mars habitable.
It's possible, but would take more than a hundred years while we
waited of running the hardware that would be necessary to generate
an atmosphere and rudimentary plant life to take hold. Doable, in
other words, but hardly an undertaking for a society of
impatient's. Congressional elections occur every two years.

On our present course we'd be preparing Mars for the Chinese.

Since (under the present policies at any rate) the Chinese will be
picking up the tab, what's the downside?

America would continue to look more and more like China in terms of
living standards.




That has been the goal of the Democrats since Lyndon Johnson became
President.

According to the party's leading economic theorists the reason for the
adverse Balance of Payments (imports higher than exports) was that,
quite simply, the US Standard of Living was too high and had to be
reduced BELOW that of the countries from whom the US imported goods.
In this way the US "consumer" (individual or corporation) could not
afford to purchase imported goods but other countries would eagerly
purchase our exports.

I hadn't heard that one. We must be listening to and reading different
economic theorists.
Our manufacturing balance of trade with the Chinese is about a wash right
now and has been.
In fact, if you take out imported oil, America is in OK condition in the
current accounts arena.
The Chinese have been buying a raw materials and high value add stuff from
us and we've been importing their crap.
That is obviously going to change if we can't bring our own high value
added
capacity competitively - or in this case, at all.


This theory matches what China has done: few, if any, imports other
than raw materials with many exports.

OK
Wrong and untrue, but Okie Dokey.

--
John R. Carroll

Eh, John, if you figure out Eregon's thinking on this, please give me a
summary, Ok? My neck just cracked like a whip trying to follow it. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ignoramus21954 wrote:
kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business

Well, we're done exporting the low-paying jobs, and the medium-paying
ones to China; it's time to start in on the really high-paying ones.

--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:


I hadn't heard that one. We must be listening to and reading
different economic theorists.

You weren't paying much, if any, attention to the news media during
the '70s.

I wasn't.


This was reported as the primary reason for the hyperinflation
instigated as n integral feature of LBJ's "Great Society".

I thought it was blowing a ton of money on VN and the formation of OPEC.


Our manufacturing balance of trade with the Chinese is about a wash
right now and has been.

Manufacturing is only a small part - think "financial" and you'll see
a major imbalance.

In fact, if you take out imported oil, America is in OK condition in
the current accounts arena.

Dream on.

Well, that's what the actual numbers say.


The Chinese have been buying a raw materials and high value add stuff
from us and we've been importing their crap.

What "stuff"? They've been doing most of their "shopping" in Europe.

They have been buying things like semiconductor fabs almost exclusively from
the US. I think most of Cat's production goes to China.
That's just two examples of many. Just look around a little and you will
find lots of info on exports - even the actual data.
You'll also see a lot of uninformed BS.

America has done a poor job of charging admission to our market. That's what
happens when you mix "spreading democracy" and economic policy.

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

National Geographic did a program on what it would take to make
Mars habitable.
It's possible, but would take more than a hundred years while we
waited of running the hardware that would be necessary to
generate an atmosphere and rudimentary plant life to take hold.
Doable, in other words, but hardly an undertaking for a society
of impatient's. Congressional elections occur every two years.

On our present course we'd be preparing Mars for the Chinese.

Since (under the present policies at any rate) the Chinese will be
picking up the tab, what's the downside?

America would continue to look more and more like China in terms of
living standards.




That has been the goal of the Democrats since Lyndon Johnson became
President.

According to the party's leading economic theorists the reason for
the adverse Balance of Payments (imports higher than exports) was
that, quite simply, the US Standard of Living was too high and had
to be reduced BELOW that of the countries from whom the US imported
goods. In this way the US "consumer" (individual or corporation)
could not afford to purchase imported goods but other countries
would eagerly purchase our exports.

I hadn't heard that one. We must be listening to and reading
different economic theorists.
Our manufacturing balance of trade with the Chinese is about a wash
right now and has been.
In fact, if you take out imported oil, America is in OK condition in
the current accounts arena.
The Chinese have been buying a raw materials and high value add
stuff from us and we've been importing their crap.
That is obviously going to change if we can't bring our own high
value added
capacity competitively - or in this case, at all.


This theory matches what China has done: few, if any, imports other
than raw materials with many exports.

OK
Wrong and untrue, but Okie Dokey.


Eh, John, if you figure out Eregon's thinking on this, please give me
a summary, Ok?

Sure Ed and when that happens you come by with the guys in white jackets
G
I actually think I know where this is coming from and it was Southern
Democrats like Zell Miller, people soon to change party's, and
Republicans.
An interpretive reading of the "facts" if you will. We are seeing the same
nonsense from the two bright lights of today's Republican party - Sarah
and
Michelle.
LOL

My neck just cracked like a whip trying to follow it.
d8-)

Had a "WTF" moment did you? Have you ever noticed that those moments are
usually accompanied by tipping your head to one side and squinting?
Hahahaha!

--
John R. Carroll

Conspiracy theories in economics are always interesting, much more than
those strictly about power and politics, but they always have a fatal flaw:
the idea that someone actually has the economic understanding and the power
to control the things that are allegedly being manipulated. The truth is,
nobody ever has that much control, or has anything like a certain idea about
how to get a particular economic result.

The conspiracy theories always look better in retrospect: This is what
happened, and the unhappy result is something that someone with evil intent
planned and schemed to accomplish; and now that we can see what they
accomplished we can look in our rearview mirrors and deconstruct the steps
they took to get us here.

Except that no one really had a freaking clue all along.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

National Geographic did a program on what it would take to make
Mars habitable.
It's possible, but would take more than a hundred years while we
waited of running the hardware that would be necessary to
generate an atmosphere and rudimentary plant life to take hold.
Doable, in other words, but hardly an undertaking for a society
of impatient's. Congressional elections occur every two years.

On our present course we'd be preparing Mars for the Chinese.

Since (under the present policies at any rate) the Chinese will be
picking up the tab, what's the downside?

America would continue to look more and more like China in terms of
living standards.




That has been the goal of the Democrats since Lyndon Johnson became
President.

According to the party's leading economic theorists the reason for
the adverse Balance of Payments (imports higher than exports) was
that, quite simply, the US Standard of Living was too high and had
to be reduced BELOW that of the countries from whom the US imported
goods. In this way the US "consumer" (individual or corporation)
could not afford to purchase imported goods but other countries
would eagerly purchase our exports.

I hadn't heard that one. We must be listening to and reading
different economic theorists.
Our manufacturing balance of trade with the Chinese is about a wash
right now and has been.
In fact, if you take out imported oil, America is in OK condition in
the current accounts arena.
The Chinese have been buying a raw materials and high value add
stuff from us and we've been importing their crap.
That is obviously going to change if we can't bring our own high
value added
capacity competitively - or in this case, at all.


This theory matches what China has done: few, if any, imports other
than raw materials with many exports.

OK
Wrong and untrue, but Okie Dokey.


Eh, John, if you figure out Eregon's thinking on this, please give me
a summary, Ok?

Sure Ed and when that happens you come by with the guys in white jackets G
I actually think I know where this is coming from and it was Southern
Democrats like Zell Miller, people soon to change party's, and Republicans.
An interpretive reading of the "facts" if you will. We are seeing the same
nonsense from the two bright lights of today's Republican party - Sarah and
Michelle.
LOL

My neck just cracked like a whip trying to follow it.
d8-)

Had a "WTF" moment did you? Have you ever noticed that those moments are
usually accompanied by tipping your head to one side and squinting?
Hahahaha!

--
John R. Carroll

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:14:01 -0400, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,


Although the article doesn't mention it, I also assume that the Chinese underbid
the French TGV.

Joe Gwinn

I would expect they did. Two other factors might be that ALSTOM and GE are not
that good at cooperating, since they are direct competitors in much of their
business and the current AGV trainsets are 50% faster than what's being looked
at for this project, so a bit more towards the premium end of the market.


Mark Rand
RTFM

Ignoramus21954 wrote:

kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business

You mean like environmental regulations and eminent domain lawsuits? High speed rail,
NIMBY!

Wes

Mark Rand wrote:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:14:01 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,


Although the article doesn't mention it, I also assume that the
Chinese underbid the French TGV.

Joe Gwinn

I would expect they did. Two other factors might be that ALSTOM and
GE are not that good at cooperating, since they are direct
competitors in much of their business and the current AGV trainsets
are 50% faster than what's being looked at for this project, so a bit
more towards the premium end of the market.

It will be hard to compete with the Chinese. All of the manufacturers in
China will be getting a ten percent kick back from their government for
everything exported. On that basis, they can bid the job at cost and stil
make a good profit.

--
John R. Carroll

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus21954 wrote:

kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business

You mean like environmental regulations and eminent domain lawsuits? High
speed rail,
NIMBY!

Wes

It is not NIMBY. A majority of the voters voted for a debacle. The train
can not go 150 mph for most of it's route. Does not go where the people
need it. And the cost will be so high, would be cheaper to give free
airplane tickets out. They are talking about going to San Francisco and the
Transbay Terminal. Where are you going to run a 100+ mph train?
Burlingame, says put it underground. Add another billion to the build
costs. Then you will have employees making living wages just like BART.
$80k+ fully paid retirement and benefits for someone with a GED. Ride the
TGV in France from Lyons to Paris. Most of the trip is maybe 75 mph. The
building trades unions are all for it. They were one of the sponsors of
the initiative. Get a couple years employment and then what. What is the
people of California will be spending billions paying for the bonds.
Cheaper to give them welfare.

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:22:03 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Ignoramus21954 wrote:

kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business

You mean like environmental regulations and eminent domain lawsuits? High speed rail,
NIMBY!

NIMBY, where I keep my San Andreas and dozens of other faults.

--
Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace
will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will
blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy,
while cares will drop away from you like the leaves of Autumn.
-- John Muir

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:22:35 -0500, Ignoramus21954
wrote:

kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business


Its interesting to know what happened the last time "chinese came to
America to build railroads"

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 17:20:49 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus21954 wrote:

kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business

You mean like environmental regulations and eminent domain lawsuits? High
speed rail,
NIMBY!

Wes

It is not NIMBY. A majority of the voters voted for a debacle. The train
can not go 150 mph for most of it's route. Does not go where the people
need it. And the cost will be so high, would be cheaper to give free
airplane tickets out. They are talking about going to San Francisco and the
Transbay Terminal. Where are you going to run a 100+ mph train?
Burlingame, says put it underground. Add another billion to the build
costs. Then you will have employees making living wages just like BART.
$80k+ fully paid retirement and benefits for someone with a GED. Ride the
TGV in France from Lyons to Paris. Most of the trip is maybe 75 mph. The
building trades unions are all for it. They were one of the sponsors of
the initiative. Get a couple years employment and then what. What is the
people of California will be spending billions paying for the bonds.
Cheaper to give them welfare.



Not quite. Schedule time between Paris and Lyon is almost exactly 2 hours for
a 280 mile trip.


Since they upgraded the lines and stations from the Victorian standards we
had, we now get Pendolino trains passing at 110mph 30 yards from the car park
at work. They make less disturbance than the 30mph traffic on the road at the
same distance.

Still be better if they were steam, though :-)

Mark Rand
RTFM

Mark Rand wrote:

Since they upgraded the lines and stations from the Victorian standards we
had, we now get Pendolino trains passing at 110mph 30 yards from the car park
at work. They make less disturbance than the 30mph traffic on the road at the
same distance.

Every time I hear high speed train, I start thinking about some nutjob welding a couple
ramps to the rail to cause a derailment. Since there are terror types trying to blow up
air planes, it would seem logical that attacking a high speed train railway would just as
attractive.


Still be better if they were steam, though :-)

Haven't you heard that coal is bad?

Wes

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:36:21 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:22:35 -0500, Ignoramus21954
wrote:

kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business


Its interesting to know what happened the last time "chinese came to
America to build railroads"

Yabbut, this time, they insist upon being paid in advance for it. And
we're insisting on doing all the labor ourselves, no doubt paying top
dollar to unionistas instead of putting people to work at decent
wages. I wish Ahnold luck in funding it, though.

--
Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace
will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will
blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy,
while cares will drop away from you like the leaves of Autumn.
-- John Muir

Wes wrote:
Mark Rand wrote:

Since they upgraded the lines and stations from the Victorian standards we
had, we now get Pendolino trains passing at 110mph 30 yards from the car park
at work. They make less disturbance than the 30mph traffic on the road at the
same distance.

Every time I hear high speed train, I start thinking about some nutjob welding a couple
ramps to the rail to cause a derailment. Since there are terror types trying to blow up
air planes, it would seem logical that attacking a high speed train railway would just as
attractive.

Still be better if they were steam, though :-)

Haven't you heard that coal is bad?

Put a small nuclear reactor in the engine. No coal!

David

In article ,
"Bill McKee" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus21954 wrote:

kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...src=me&ref=bus
iness

You mean like environmental regulations and eminent domain lawsuits? High
speed rail, NIMBY!

Wes

.... Ride the
TGV in France from Lyons to Paris. Most of the trip is maybe 75 mph.

Umm, no. I have taken the TGV from Paris to Lyon, and back, a day trip taken
just to try the TGV out. Most of the time, it's hard to watch the scenery as it
is flying by - far too fast, visually disturbing. Looking out of a car at 75
mph has no such effect. And, as others have pointed out, if you compute the
average speed from the train schedule, the TGV must be going far faster.

Where did the 75 mph estimate come from?

Joe Gwinn

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 06:57:58 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:36:21 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:22:35 -0500, Ignoramus21954
wrote:

kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business


Its interesting to know what happened the last time "chinese came to
America to build railroads"

Yabbut, this time, they insist upon being paid in advance for it. And
we're insisting on doing all the labor ourselves, no doubt paying top
dollar to unionistas instead of putting people to work at decent
wages. I wish Ahnold luck in funding it, though.


So the sides of the railroads across the nation wont be fertilized by
the mouldering bodies of Chinese and Irish?

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

Gunner Asch wrote:

Its interesting to know what happened the last time "chinese came to
America to build railroads"

Some of them stayed and became Americans as did the Irish.

I can't remember the book but there was a part where some Chinese were prepping a rock
face to blow it for a tunnel. Some foreman type was attempting to tell them how to set
the charge and one of the chinese crew said, something to effect we know what we are
doing, the chinese invented gunpowder.

I wish I had a better memory.

Wes

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:14:15 -0400, Wes wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

Its interesting to know what happened the last time "chinese came to
America to build railroads"

Some of them stayed and became Americans as did the Irish.

And many many thousands of both became part of the railroad sceanery as
they died and were buried along side the tracks.


I can't remember the book but there was a part where some Chinese were prepping a rock
face to blow it for a tunnel. Some foreman type was attempting to tell them how to set
the charge and one of the chinese crew said, something to effect we know what we are
doing, the chinese invented gunpowder.

They were very smart, though not well educated, but learned very fast
and became marvelous citizens.


I wish I had a better memory.

Wes


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On 2010-04-10, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:22:35 -0500, Ignoramus21954
wrote:

kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business


Its interesting to know what happened the last time "chinese came to
America to build railroads"

They built railtoads? What else happened?

On 2010-04-11, Ignoramus27467 wrote:
On 2010-04-10, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:22:35 -0500, Ignoramus21954
wrote:

kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business


Its interesting to know what happened the last time "chinese came to
America to build railroads"

They built railtoads? What else happened?

I should refrain from posting under influence... I meant
railroads... not railtoads

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:20:18 -0500, the renowned Ignoramus27467
wrote:

On 2010-04-10, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:22:35 -0500, Ignoramus21954
wrote:

kind of shocking and sad. I have a feeling that they will not build
anything due to the typical reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/bu...e&ref=business


Its interesting to know what happened the last time "chinese came to
America to build railroads"

They built railtoads? What else happened?

Sweet and sour chicken balls and moo goo gai pan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Chinese_cuisine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Chinese_cuisine


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