All right, all you experts out there. Those who know so much, and have been
telling us all about the election according to their ever swelling brains :
Make your predictions.

Romney by 5.7%. Electorate college - 307.

Please state only one total % difference, and one electoral college number.

% must be two digit number with decimal point.

Winner is closest without going over.

With surveys being skewed by as much as double digit sampling, the outcome
is already pretty obvious.

Steve

On Nov 5, 11:17*am, "Steve B" wrote:
All right, all you experts out there. *Those who know so much, and have been
telling us all about the election according to their ever swelling brains :
Make your predictions.

Romney by 5.7%. *Electorate college - 307.

Please state only one total % difference, and one electoral college number.

"Gunner" wrote

No definate idea. But I rather suspect Romney will win in a
landslide.

If not..the Great Cull will occur by early spring.

Hope not.

Gunner


Hope so. Part of my hope and change policy. It is time for the tree of
freedom to be fertilized by the blood of tyrants. And we got a lot of
fertilizer available from the dogcatcher on up. And then there are just
people who are taking up my space and oxygen that need to go, too. Wastes
of protoplasm.

Steve

On Nov 5, 5:30*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"Gunner" wrote

No definate idea. * *But I rather suspect Romney will win in a
landslide.

If not..the Great Cull will occur by early spring.

Hope not.

Gunner

Hope so. *Part of my hope and change policy. *It is time for the tree of
freedom to be fertilized by the blood of tyrants. *And we got a lot of
fertilizer available from the dogcatcher on up. *And then there are just
people who are taking up my space and oxygen that need to go, too. *Wastes
of protoplasm.

Steve

So you too advocate violent behavior against innocent Americans.

Does that include the President of the United States?

TMT

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:37:04 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:17:27 -0700, "Steve B" wrote:

All right, all you experts out there. Those who know so much, and have been
telling us all about the election according to their ever swelling brains :
Make your predictions.

Romney by 5.7%. Electorate college - 307.

Please state only one total % difference, and one electoral college number.

% must be two digit number with decimal point.

Winner is closest without going over.

With surveys being skewed by as much as double digit sampling, the outcome
is already pretty obvious.

Steve


No definate idea. But I rather suspect Romney will win in a
landslide.

I think Obammy will win it, unless our (TP/Libertarian/independent)
write-in gives it to Ron Paul. Wouldn't that be a bleedin' hoot? g


If not..the Great Cull will occur by early spring.

'Bout time.


Hope not.

I used to. Not so sure now. How else do you wrestle control away
from the people who control the vote, write the laws, ignore the
people? Nothing We, the People, have tried so far has mattered one
iota. They're totally corrupt and totally out of control. Look at the
cliff. What's a poor We, the People, to do? shrug

I'll be on my porch with my feet up when it starts. Listening to my
new Baofeng UV-5R ham handheld and eating food storage food.

Key words for the futu Foreign and Domestic.

--
While we have the gift of life, it seems to me that only tragedy
is to allow part of us to die - whether it is our spirit, our
creativity, or our glorious uniqueness.
-- Gilda Radner

Not a lot of certainty, considering that voting is tomorrow.

indeed.

i also predict this country is FUBAR, no matter who wins. Things will
start looking really ugly as soon as congress deadlocks over the debt
problem early next year. All we need is a few small countries else
where toppling to bring down the whole house of cards.

Karl

....
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.
....

There was a famous fella in the late 1800s that wrote about the
destiny of civilization when production is increased to the Nth
degree. His name, Karl Marx.

Karl

On 11/5/2012 3:30 PM, Steve B wrote:
"Gunner" wrote

No definate idea. But I rather suspect Romney will win in a
landslide.

If not..the Great Cull will occur by early spring.

Hope not.

Gunner


Hope so. Part of my hope and change policy. It is time for the tree of
freedom to be fertilized by the blood of tyrants. And we got a lot of
fertilizer available from the dogcatcher on up. And then there are just
people who are taking up my space and oxygen that need to go, too. Wastes
of protoplasm.

Steve


There's a way to know who these people are too. They vote for
republicans. Those folks have to go. I'm locked and loaded.

Hawke

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.

There was a famous fella in the late 1800s that wrote about the
destiny of civilization when production is increased to the Nth
degree. His name, Karl Marx.

I no longer recall what, if anything, Karl Marx wrote about that sort
of thing.

i

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


'Service Economy' is a myth. It doesn't create anything by itself,
it just bounces the same few dollars around.

On 2012-11-06, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


'Service Economy' is a myth. It doesn't create anything by itself,
it just bounces the same few dollars around.

Let's say that you give me a chunk of metal and I make you an object
from this chunk of metal, that you need. You pay me for it. That's
manufacturing.

Now let's say that tomorrow you come to me and I cut your hair
instead. That's service.

It is manufacturing on one day and service on another.

But the economic difference is not huge.

i

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


'Service Economy' is a myth. It doesn't create anything by itself,
it just bounces the same few dollars around.

Let's say that you give me a chunk of metal and I make you an object
from this chunk of metal, that you need. You pay me for it. That's
manufacturing.

Now let's say that tomorrow you come to me and I cut your hair
instead. That's service.

It is manufacturing on one day and service on another.

But the economic difference is not huge.


Apples & oranges. You're a babrber and your last pair of electric
hair clippers die. You call all the companies who used to make them, to
discover their factories were closed & all the tools liquidated. You're
out of business, too.

On 11/6/2012 4:37 PM, Ignoramus5113 wrote:
On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.

There was a famous fella in the late 1800s that wrote about the
destiny of civilization when production is increased to the Nth
degree. His name, Karl Marx.

I no longer recall what, if anything, Karl Marx wrote about that sort
of thing.

i


A service economy doesn't create wealth. No society can survive unless
their main activity is wealth creation. Wealth creation is:
Mining/drilling, agriculture/logging, manufacturing. PERIOD! A service
economy is doomed to fail, it's like a circle of guys polishing each
others' shoes...eventually they run out of polish. I'm very surprised
to see you state that, you know better and I know you know better.

On 11/6/2012 6:27 PM, Ignoramus5113 wrote:
On 2012-11-06, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


'Service Economy' is a myth. It doesn't create anything by itself,
it just bounces the same few dollars around.

Let's say that you give me a chunk of metal and I make you an object
from this chunk of metal, that you need. You pay me for it. That's
manufacturing.

Now let's say that tomorrow you come to me and I cut your hair
instead. That's service.

It is manufacturing on one day and service on another.

But the economic difference is not huge.

i

Where did you get the tools? Did they just magically spring into
existence?

On 11/6/2012 6:41 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


'Service Economy' is a myth. It doesn't create anything by itself,
it just bounces the same few dollars around.

Let's say that you give me a chunk of metal and I make you an object
from this chunk of metal, that you need. You pay me for it. That's
manufacturing.

Now let's say that tomorrow you come to me and I cut your hair
instead. That's service.

It is manufacturing on one day and service on another.

But the economic difference is not huge.


Apples & oranges. You're a barber and your last pair of electric
hair clippers die. You call all the companies who used to make them, to
discover their factories were closed & all the tools liquidated. You're
out of business, too.


I've had this discussion about wealth creation with hundreds of people.
When it's explained to them in terms they understand, they GET it! A
service based society is doomed to FAIL! (thus, America's main problem)

On 11/6/2012 2:07 PM, Hawke wrote:

There's a way to know who these people are too. They vote for
republicans. Those folks have to go. I'm locked and loaded.

Hawke


What did you lock and what did you load?

On 11/5/2012 10:26 PM, Karl Townsend wrote:

Not a lot of certainty, considering that voting is tomorrow.

indeed.

i also predict this country is FUBAR, no matter who wins. Things will
start looking really ugly as soon as congress deadlocks over the debt
problem early next year. All we need is a few small countries else
where toppling to bring down the whole house of cards.

Karl



At least you have an abundant food supply and the ability to get more.
I'd have to live on Walleye and my one Peach tree.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:27:40 -0600, Ignoramus5113
wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


'Service Economy' is a myth. It doesn't create anything by itself,
it just bounces the same few dollars around.

Let's say that you give me a chunk of metal and I make you an object
from this chunk of metal, that you need. You pay me for it. That's
manufacturing.

Now let's say that tomorrow you come to me and I cut your hair
instead. That's service.

It is manufacturing on one day and service on another.

But the economic difference is not huge.

i

Very hard to export haircuts :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.

On 11/6/2012 7:35 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:27:40 -0600, Ignoramus5113
wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


'Service Economy' is a myth. It doesn't create anything by itself,
it just bounces the same few dollars around.

Let's say that you give me a chunk of metal and I make you an object
from this chunk of metal, that you need. You pay me for it. That's
manufacturing.

Now let's say that tomorrow you come to me and I cut your hair
instead. That's service.

It is manufacturing on one day and service on another.

But the economic difference is not huge.

i

Very hard to export haircuts :-)


But you could export hair. Would that be manufacturing or agriculture?

On 2012-11-06, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


'Service Economy' is a myth. It doesn't create anything by itself,
it just bounces the same few dollars around.

Let's say that you give me a chunk of metal and I make you an object
from this chunk of metal, that you need. You pay me for it. That's
manufacturing.

Now let's say that tomorrow you come to me and I cut your hair
instead. That's service.

It is manufacturing on one day and service on another.

But the economic difference is not huge.


Apples & oranges. You're a babrber and your last pair of electric
hair clippers die. You call all the companies who used to make them, to
discover their factories were closed & all the tools liquidated. You're
out of business, too.

But Mike, the concern was that manufacturing would disappear, it would
not, but that it would be automated and not employing a lot of
people.

And my answer is, it is fine, people can instead be employed servicing
each other, while manufacturing hums along with minimal staffing
level.

The same thing already happened to agriculture. 150 years ago, most
people were in agriculture. Now, just a small number. But the food is
plentiful and cheap.

i

On 2012-11-07, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:
On 11/6/2012 4:37 PM, Ignoramus5113 wrote:
On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.

There was a famous fella in the late 1800s that wrote about the
destiny of civilization when production is increased to the Nth
degree. His name, Karl Marx.

I no longer recall what, if anything, Karl Marx wrote about that sort
of thing.

i


A service economy doesn't create wealth. No society can survive unless
their main activity is wealth creation. Wealth creation is:
Mining/drilling, agriculture/logging, manufacturing. PERIOD! A service
economy is doomed to fail, it's like a circle of guys polishing each
others' shoes...eventually they run out of polish. I'm very surprised
to see you state that, you know better and I know you know better.

See my answer to Mike Terrell. I do not think that manufacturing will
disappear, but I do think that as time goes on, it will employe less
and less people. Same thing happened to agriculture.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:19:50 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


'Service Economy' is a myth. It doesn't create anything by itself,
it just bounces the same few dollars around.

It provides (almost) a living for me.

--
While we have the gift of life, it seems to me that only tragedy
is to allow part of us to die - whether it is our spirit, our
creativity, or our glorious uniqueness.
-- Gilda Radner

Tom Gardner wrote:

But you could export hair. Would that be manufacturing or agriculture?


Or drain cleaning?

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:19:50 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


'Service Economy' is a myth. It doesn't create anything by itself,
it just bounces the same few dollars around.

It provides (almost) a living for me.


That's good for you, but you can't have everyone working in service
industries. I used to make my living that way, too. I've also worked
in engineering & manufacturing. Hell, I even did a little construction,
too.

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 19:13:26 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 11/6/2012 2:07 PM, Hawke wrote:

There's a way to know who these people are too. They vote for
republicans. Those folks have to go. I'm locked and loaded.

Hawke


What did you lock and what did you load?

The parakeet locked the door to his basement abode and loaded up his
bong.


Have you corked your parakeet today?

On 2012-11-07, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:37:21 -0600, Ignoramus5113
wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


So the easy solution is to have everyone shining everyone elses shoes.

Well, if, say, there is a super brilliant CNC machine that makes all
goods without any labor input, then, yes, we can have an economy where
95% of people earn a living by providing services.

Odd how you cant remember the Dialectic, yet its oviously ingrained
into your id.

Gunner

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-07, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:37:21 -0600, Ignoramus5113
wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


So the easy solution is to have everyone shining everyone elses shoes.

Well, if, say, there is a super brilliant CNC machine that makes all
goods without any labor input, then, yes, we can have an economy where
95% of people earn a living by providing services.


Who is going to build the parts for that machine & maintain it? Who
is going to write all the code for every thing it can make? The more
complex the system, the more it takes to maintain. Even if it were
possible, there would still be too many people chasing too few paying
jobs.

"Karl Townsend" wrote in message
...
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.
...

There was a famous fella in the late 1800s that wrote about the
destiny of civilization when production is increased to the Nth
degree. His name, Karl Marx.



Does not matter how quick the "producers" can bake cakes; the rich can only
eat so much of it.

"Ignoramus5113" wrote in message
...
On 2012-11-07, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:
On 11/6/2012 4:37 PM, Ignoramus5113 wrote:
On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products
and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.

There was a famous fella in the late 1800s that wrote about the
destiny of civilization when production is increased to the Nth
degree. His name, Karl Marx.

I no longer recall what, if anything, Karl Marx wrote about that sort
of thing.

i


A service economy doesn't create wealth. No society can survive unless
their main activity is wealth creation. Wealth creation is:
Mining/drilling, agriculture/logging, manufacturing. PERIOD! A service
economy is doomed to fail, it's like a circle of guys polishing each
others' shoes...eventually they run out of polish. I'm very surprised
to see you state that, you know better and I know you know better.

See my answer to Mike Terrell. I do not think that manufacturing will
disappear, but I do think that as time goes on, it will employe less
and less people. Same thing happened to agriculture.

Wealth creation is via reserve banking, which serves to expand the money
supply.

Wealth accumulation is a completely different animal, and can occur through
energy extraction, agriculture, manufacturing, service, and myriad other
endeavers.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:14:05 -0600, Ignoramus5113
wrote:

On 2012-11-07, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:
On 11/6/2012 4:37 PM, Ignoramus5113 wrote:
On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.

There was a famous fella in the late 1800s that wrote about the
destiny of civilization when production is increased to the Nth
degree. His name, Karl Marx.

I no longer recall what, if anything, Karl Marx wrote about that sort
of thing.

i


A service economy doesn't create wealth. No society can survive unless
their main activity is wealth creation. Wealth creation is:
Mining/drilling, agriculture/logging, manufacturing. PERIOD! A service
economy is doomed to fail, it's like a circle of guys polishing each
others' shoes...eventually they run out of polish. I'm very surprised
to see you state that, you know better and I know you know better.

See my answer to Mike Terrell. I do not think that manufacturing will
disappear, but I do think that as time goes on, it will employe less
and less people. Same thing happened to agriculture.

True. Nobody harvests wheat by hand any more. Now a guy in a big
harvester (imported from China) comes by and cuts your field for you
and 23 people, with sickles, lost their jobs. So now we have two guys
with an income (you with the wheat and the other guy with the
harvester) and 23 people begging on the corner.

--
Cheers,
John B.

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 22:51:49 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ignoramus5113" wrote in message
...
On 2012-11-07, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:
On 11/6/2012 4:37 PM, Ignoramus5113 wrote:
On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products
and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.

There was a famous fella in the late 1800s that wrote about the
destiny of civilization when production is increased to the Nth
degree. His name, Karl Marx.

I no longer recall what, if anything, Karl Marx wrote about that sort
of thing.

i


A service economy doesn't create wealth. No society can survive unless
their main activity is wealth creation. Wealth creation is:
Mining/drilling, agriculture/logging, manufacturing. PERIOD! A service
economy is doomed to fail, it's like a circle of guys polishing each
others' shoes...eventually they run out of polish. I'm very surprised
to see you state that, you know better and I know you know better.

See my answer to Mike Terrell. I do not think that manufacturing will
disappear, but I do think that as time goes on, it will employe less
and less people. Same thing happened to agriculture.

Wealth creation is via reserve banking, which serves to expand the money
supply.

Wealth accumulation is a completely different animal, and can occur through
energy extraction, agriculture, manufacturing, service, and myriad other
endeavers.


How does the bank create wealth?
--
Cheers,
John B.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 19:49:27 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 11/6/2012 7:35 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:27:40 -0600, Ignoramus5113
wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


'Service Economy' is a myth. It doesn't create anything by itself,
it just bounces the same few dollars around.

Let's say that you give me a chunk of metal and I make you an object
from this chunk of metal, that you need. You pay me for it. That's
manufacturing.

Now let's say that tomorrow you come to me and I cut your hair
instead. That's service.

It is manufacturing on one day and service on another.

But the economic difference is not huge.

i

Very hard to export haircuts :-)


But you could export hair. Would that be manufacturing or agriculture?

Sure, you get a bunch of women growing the hair and you pay them for
their product and export it. About like growing apples, I guess.
--
Cheers,
John B.

Bunch of grey haired bankers will riot,
and burn down the wealthy parts of town.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:12:49 -0600, Ignoramus5113
wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Ignoramus5113 wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


'Service Economy' is a myth. It doesn't create anything by itself,
it just bounces the same few dollars around.

Let's say that you give me a chunk of metal and I make you an object
from this chunk of metal, that you need. You pay me for it. That's
manufacturing.

Now let's say that tomorrow you come to me and I cut your hair
instead. That's service.

It is manufacturing on one day and service on another.

But the economic difference is not huge.


Apples & oranges. You're a babrber and your last pair of electric
hair clippers die. You call all the companies who used to make them, to
discover their factories were closed & all the tools liquidated. You're
out of business, too.

But Mike, the concern was that manufacturing would disappear, it would
not, but that it would be automated and not employing a lot of
people.

And my answer is, it is fine, people can instead be employed servicing
each other, while manufacturing hums along with minimal staffing
level.

The same thing already happened to agriculture. 150 years ago, most
people were in agriculture. Now, just a small number. But the food is
plentiful and cheap.

i

In the late 1400's and early 1500's exactly this happened in England.
Tenant farmers forced off their farms and the farms enclosed (fenced)
to make pasture for sheep as the wool industry was more profitable
then farming and used far less peoples. The result was a tremendous
increase in the population in the cities, massive unemployment and
large increases in crime.

But wool was cheap and abundant.

Close to 200 years later the English industrial revolution came along
and employed these "poor people".

--
Cheers,
John B.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 23:32:32 -0600, Ignoramus5113
wrote:

On 2012-11-07, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:37:21 -0600, Ignoramus5113
wrote:

On 2012-11-06, Karl Townsend wrote:
...
This fundamental issue is also combining with automation to further
erode the ability of a country's economy to gainfully employ the
majority of it's population. When the production of all the products and
services required by 100% of the population only requires 20% of the
population's labor you have another serious problem that has no easy
solution.

The easy solution is called a service economy. Nobody said that
"production" is the only real economic activity.


So the easy solution is to have everyone shining everyone elses shoes.

Well, if, say, there is a super brilliant CNC machine that makes all
goods without any labor input, then, yes, we can have an economy where
95% of people earn a living by providing services.

Odd how you cant remember the Dialectic, yet its oviously ingrained
into your id.

Gunner

The problem is one of scale. You got an assembly line that employees,
say 200 people, and you replace it with a CNC machine (imported) that
uses one guy to write the code, one guy for mechanical/electrical
maintenance, and one guy to sweep the floor.

What are the 197 other guys going to do?

It is all well and good to say "Services" but we already got the three
"service" guys we need and they'll probably hang around until they are
in their 60's.
--
Cheers,
John B.

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:26:57 +0700, the renowned John B.
wrote:


But you could export hair. Would that be manufacturing or agriculture?

Sure, you get a bunch of women growing the hair and you pay them for
their product and export it. About like growing apples, I guess.
--
Cheers,
John B.

The Indians (from India, and others) do this. It ends up as decoration
and the shorter floor sweepings can be made into food additives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cysteine

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marb...tive-your-food


Seems a bit risky, since human hair not only is extruded out of
potentially disease-ridden humans, but also is exposed to all manner
of chemicals to straighten it, curl it, bleach it, dye it, deal with
"split ends", soften it, etc., but, hey, it's more profitable than
using duck feathers.


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 Monday, November 5, 2012 12:17:26 PM UTC-5, Steve B wrote:
All right, all you experts out there. Those who know so much, and have been

telling us all about the election according to their ever swelling brains :

Make your predictions.

My prediction is that GummyBear will cull himself.

On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:27:02 PM UTC-5, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:37:04 -0800, Gunner

wrote:



On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:17:27 -0700, "Steve B" wrote:



All right, all you experts out there. Those who know so much, and have been

telling us all about the election according to their ever swelling brains :

Make your predictions.



Romney by 5.7%. Electorate college - 307.



Please state only one total % difference, and one electoral college number.



% must be two digit number with decimal point.



Winner is closest without going over.



With surveys being skewed by as much as double digit sampling, the outcome

is already pretty obvious.



Steve





No definate idea. But I rather suspect Romney will win in a

landslide.



I think Obammy will win it, unless our (TP/Libertarian/independent)

write-in gives it to Ron Paul. Wouldn't that be a bleedin' hoot? g





If not..the Great Cull will occur by early spring.



'Bout time.





Hope not.



I used to. Not so sure now. How else do you wrestle control away

from the people who control the vote, write the laws, ignore the

people? Nothing We, the People, have tried so far has mattered one

iota. They're totally corrupt and totally out of control. Look at the

cliff. What's a poor We, the People, to do? shrug



I'll be on my porch with my feet up when it starts. Listening to my

new Baofeng UV-5R ham handheld and eating food storage food.



Key words for the futu Foreign and Domestic.



--

While we have the gift of life, it seems to me that only tragedy

is to allow part of us to die - whether it is our spirit, our

creativity, or our glorious uniqueness.

-- Gilda Radner

How dare you spew the hatred that you do, and then quote Gilda Radner? I am so very happy not to be you.

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:


See my answer to Mike Terrell. I do not think that manufacturing will
disappear, but I do think that as time goes on, it will employe less
and less people. Same thing happened to agriculture.

Wealth creation is via reserve banking, which serves to expand the money
supply.


Required US bank reserves (in billions) we
1985-01-01 40.322
1991-01-01 48.792
2008-01-01 43.243

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/REQRESNS.txt

M2 money stock (in billions) was
1985-01-21 2338.2
1991-01-07 3280.9
2008-01-07 7452.9

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/M2.txt

Doesn't look like bank reserves have anything at all to
do with the growth of money supply.

And


The money supply tends to shrink when the private
sector realizes that it is much too heavily indebted and
it starts to pay back debt at a much faster pace
than it creates new debt.

OK, so, who was the closest?

i

On 2012-11-05, Steve B wrote:
All right, all you experts out there. Those who know so much, and have been
telling us all about the election according to their ever swelling brains :
Make your predictions.

Romney by 5.7%. Electorate college - 307.

Please state only one total % difference, and one electoral college number.

% must be two digit number with decimal point.

Winner is closest without going over.

With surveys being skewed by as much as double digit sampling, the outcome
is already pretty obvious.

Steve