On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:18:49 GMT, "Bob" wrote:

Ok, Reagan had huge deficits. Do you think it only cost a dollar and ninety
five cents to win the Cold War? Wasn't the deficit worth it?


It cost a huge chunk of our wealth and apx 90,000 US servicemens'
lives (and that's not counting the wounded) over a period of 40-odd
years to "win" the Cold War. Do you truly believe that RR was
"responsible ?" Or did he accelerate it by a few years ?

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 10:33:41 -0800, Tim Douglass
wrote:

You think so, still remember those tin can **** in the 60's, Datsun or Toyota?
Toyota is the best-selling car today surpasses even GM, while Ford is struggling
to remain as a major player:-)

Never, never underestimate your competitors. There are differences between our
manufacturers here and elsewhere. In Japan, I presume later China; Our
manufacturers are more interested in big buck NOW, or how much they can rip us
today. While they (Japan, Taiwan, China etc.) gave us what some of us could not
never afford, No?

Look at the drugs' companies...racking billions and they do not allow our govt.
to negotiate for lower prices. Go to any HF and buy a set of hole saw for
two-ninety-nine, or looking longingly at a US-MADE hole saw for fifty bucks.
Maybe, they should enact laws, only family with more than $200,000 income
are allow to have woodworking hobby (just joking and I really do not mean it).

We can argue till the cow come home in the evening who is right.

Greed is what killing.

Doubt it. People may buy junk tools and toasters, but cars that fall
apart don't last long in the market. You will notice a steady churn in
the cheap models arena as people keep looking for a cheap *good* car.
One doesn't exist because it costs too much to make a car good, but
people keep trying. Only if they bring quality will they stand a real
chance in the US auto market, and then they will have to be able to
compete on price against the other low-cost imports.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 20:54:57 -0700, Doug Winterburn
calmly ranted:

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 21:04:43 -0600, Phil wrote:

[snip of wisdom]

Back to woodworking, those who do very high end custom stuff I suspect are doing
better than the one trying to build bookcases.

No flames please, I'm not trying to start an argument, just my personal
perspective. If I'm right or wrong isn't important to me, just my 2 cents is
all.

Amen!

Our very own Tom Plamann, Phully Laird, Sigh Kaplan, Kim Whitmyre, and
Tawm Watson are all pretty good proof of that premise, wot?


-----------------------------------------------------------------
When I die, I'm leaving my body to science fiction. --Steven Wright
----------------------------
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 08:35:59 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"Phil" wrote in message

If you watch tv, or live in the city, you know that many of the "Orange
County
Choppers" or "West Coast Custom's" are building very expensive custom one
of a
kind machines, and business is good.

Yabbut, how long will that last? While there is undoubtably "riches in
niches", your example is of a very limited market, further supported by the
entertainment industry of which they have no control, and is certainly not a
market that you can build a national economy upon.

Throwing a bit of history into the mix, in feudal times a business model
like that only lasted until favour was lost with the ruling class, or until
the ruling class got bored and went on to some other form of entertainment..

... sound vaguely familiar?

When that happens you change your niche.
If you're fixiated on the idea that a market will continue to exist
for a long time you're setting yourself up for trouble in the modern
world.

So no, I don't think that in 20 years "Orange County Choppers" or
whatever will still be building the products they are today. I
couldn't tell you what products they will be building. But if they're
smart they'll still be occupying a very profitable niche somewhere.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

Are you talking about WW2? I don't recall that many lives lost in the Cold
War. I served 8 years during the cold war and accidents excluded I do not
recall any casualties. I don't think you know what ur talking about.
And that's the facts Jack

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:18:49 GMT, "Bob" wrote:

Ok, Reagan had huge deficits. Do you think it only cost a dollar and
ninety
five cents to win the Cold War? Wasn't the deficit worth it?


It cost a huge chunk of our wealth and apx 90,000 US servicemens'
lives (and that's not counting the wounded) over a period of 40-odd
years to "win" the Cold War. Do you truly believe that RR was
"responsible ?" Or did he accelerate it by a few years ?

OCC=Soap Opera

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 08:35:59 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"Phil" wrote in message

If you watch tv, or live in the city, you know that many of the
"Orange
County
Choppers" or "West Coast Custom's" are building very expensive custom
one
of a
kind machines, and business is good.

Yabbut, how long will that last? While there is undoubtably "riches in
niches", your example is of a very limited market, further supported by
the
entertainment industry of which they have no control, and is certainly
not a
market that you can build a national economy upon.

Throwing a bit of history into the mix, in feudal times a business model
like that only lasted until favour was lost with the ruling class, or
until
the ruling class got bored and went on to some other form of
entertainment..

... sound vaguely familiar?

When that happens you change your niche.
If you're fixiated on the idea that a market will continue to exist
for a long time you're setting yourself up for trouble in the modern
world.

So no, I don't think that in 20 years "Orange County Choppers" or
whatever will still be building the products they are today. I
couldn't tell you what products they will be building. But if they're
smart they'll still be occupying a very profitable niche somewhere.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:09:48 GMT, "Bullwinkle J. Moose"
wrote:

OCC=Soap Opera

Well, there's always been a strong market for soap opera.

--RC


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 08:35:59 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"Phil" wrote in message

If you watch tv, or live in the city, you know that many of the
"Orange
County
Choppers" or "West Coast Custom's" are building very expensive custom
one
of a
kind machines, and business is good.

Yabbut, how long will that last? While there is undoubtably "riches in
niches", your example is of a very limited market, further supported by
the
entertainment industry of which they have no control, and is certainly
not a
market that you can build a national economy upon.

Throwing a bit of history into the mix, in feudal times a business model
like that only lasted until favour was lost with the ruling class, or
until
the ruling class got bored and went on to some other form of
entertainment..

... sound vaguely familiar?

When that happens you change your niche.
If you're fixiated on the idea that a market will continue to exist
for a long time you're setting yourself up for trouble in the modern
world.

So no, I don't think that in 20 years "Orange County Choppers" or
whatever will still be building the products they are today. I
couldn't tell you what products they will be building. But if they're
smart they'll still be occupying a very profitable niche somewhere.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.


"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

I wouldn't disagree with that at all. I rarely watch it, but the point is
still valid.

Markets change, jobs and skills change, not much doesn't. I was sitting trying
to think of something that probably didn't change a lot, came up with bartender
and minister, but even they have different skills they utilize than the did 30
years ago. Bur if I were a bartender I'd be studying for a different job. One
of these days, a robot that is either a babe or a hunk, and can mix and pour
straight from their finger is gonna take that job over.... :-) But, that
minister job is rock solid, we humans got sin in our jeans......... :-)

"Bullwinkle J. Moose" wrote:

OCC=Soap Opera

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 08:35:59 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"Phil" wrote in message

If you watch tv, or live in the city, you know that many of the
"Orange
County
Choppers" or "West Coast Custom's" are building very expensive custom
one
of a
kind machines, and business is good.

Yabbut, how long will that last? While there is undoubtably "riches in
niches", your example is of a very limited market, further supported by
the
entertainment industry of which they have no control, and is certainly
not a
market that you can build a national economy upon.

Throwing a bit of history into the mix, in feudal times a business model
like that only lasted until favour was lost with the ruling class, or
until
the ruling class got bored and went on to some other form of
entertainment..

... sound vaguely familiar?

When that happens you change your niche.
If you're fixiated on the idea that a market will continue to exist
for a long time you're setting yourself up for trouble in the modern
world.

So no, I don't think that in 20 years "Orange County Choppers" or
whatever will still be building the products they are today. I
couldn't tell you what products they will be building. But if they're
smart they'll still be occupying a very profitable niche somewhere.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:17:26 -0600, Phil wrote:

If I could act as well as Benny Hinn, I'll be a minister. I'm on the road to
riches.

I wouldn't disagree with that at all. I rarely watch it, but the point is
still valid.

Markets change, jobs and skills change, not much doesn't. I was sitting trying
to think of something that probably didn't change a lot, came up with bartender
and minister, but even they have different skills they utilize than the did 30
years ago. Bur if I were a bartender I'd be studying for a different job. One
of these days, a robot that is either a babe or a hunk, and can mix and pour
straight from their finger is gonna take that job over.... :-) But, that
minister job is rock solid, we humans got sin in our jeans......... :-)

"Bullwinkle J. Moose" wrote:

OCC=Soap Opera

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 08:35:59 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"Phil" wrote in message

If you watch tv, or live in the city, you know that many of the
"Orange
County
Choppers" or "West Coast Custom's" are building very expensive custom
one
of a
kind machines, and business is good.

Yabbut, how long will that last? While there is undoubtably "riches in
niches", your example is of a very limited market, further supported by
the
entertainment industry of which they have no control, and is certainly
not a
market that you can build a national economy upon.

Throwing a bit of history into the mix, in feudal times a business model
like that only lasted until favour was lost with the ruling class, or
until
the ruling class got bored and went on to some other form of
entertainment..

... sound vaguely familiar?

When that happens you change your niche.
If you're fixiated on the idea that a market will continue to exist
for a long time you're setting yourself up for trouble in the modern
world.

So no, I don't think that in 20 years "Orange County Choppers" or
whatever will still be building the products they are today. I
couldn't tell you what products they will be building. But if they're
smart they'll still be occupying a very profitable niche somewhere.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:00:21 GMT, "Bob" wrote:

Are you talking about WW2? I don't recall that many lives lost in the Cold
War. I served 8 years during the cold war and accidents excluded I do not
recall any casualties. I don't think you know what ur talking about.
And that's the facts Jack

Well, there was that little conflict in Korea, 38K US dead,
and another in Vuetnam/Cambodia/Laos, another 58K
US. That sounds like about 95 very dead K to me.

Greg
The conflicts you refer to below were not part of the Cold War. They were
wars started by the Democrat administrations. You are obviously not a
student of history. Why don't you take some courses at night? Maybe you'll
learn something. Get over the last election the left wing of our party lost
the election for us old Democrats. When they start believing , so-to-speak,
in motherhood and apple pie again, my grand old party will once again
dominate.
Greg get a life, wake up and smell the coffee.

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:00:21 GMT, "Bob" wrote:

Are you talking about WW2? I don't recall that many lives lost in the
Cold
War. I served 8 years during the cold war and accidents excluded I do not
recall any casualties. I don't think you know what ur talking about.
And that's the facts Jack

Well, there was that little conflict in Korea "A UNITED NATIONS
SPONSORED POLICE ACTION", 38K US dead,
and another in Vuetnam/Cambodia/Laos, another 58K
US. That sounds like about 95 very dead K to me.

The conflicts -- Vietnam, Korea -- were absolutely part of the Cold
War. The only reason we got involved at all was because the Russians
would be supporting the `other' side and our politicians would get
nervous about being tagged as the people who `lost' (fill in the
blank.)

Or, the Russians and/or Chinese would seek to
liberate
exploit
stir up trouble
free
overturn
right a wrong

(pick your version of events) and the U.S. would respond.

The phrase `Cold War' does not mean there was no shooting. It just
means that the U.S. and the Russians didn't shoot at each other
directly, since that would quickly escalate into our Mutually Assured
Destruction. (the policy of MAD).

It would more accurate to call that time the
`Decades of War by Proxy.'

And before you tag the Dems as the warmonger party, remember that the
Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which became the thin reed of authorization
for prosecuting the conflict, says in part ...

``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves
and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in
Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack
against the forces of the United States and to prevent further
aggression.''

Surely there were one or two Republicans that voted for the measure.
would love to find the actual vote breakdown, but it escapes me for
the moment.



"Bob" wrote:

Greg
The conflicts you refer to below were not part of the Cold War. They were
wars started by the Democrat administrations. You are obviously not a
student of history. Why don't you take some courses at night? Maybe you'll
learn something. Get over the last election the left wing of our party lost
the election for us old Democrats. When they start believing , so-to-speak,
in motherhood and apple pie again, my grand old party will once again
dominate.
Greg get a life, wake up and smell the coffee.

"GregP" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:00:21 GMT, "Bob" wrote:

Are you talking about WW2? I don't recall that many lives lost in the
Cold
War. I served 8 years during the cold war and accidents excluded I do not
recall any casualties. I don't think you know what ur talking about.
And that's the facts Jack

Well, there was that little conflict in Korea "A UNITED NATIONS
SPONSORED POLICE ACTION", 38K US dead,
and another in Vuetnam/Cambodia/Laos, another 58K
US. That sounds like about 95 very dead K to me.


Larry Levinson
Talking up to the vocal ...
LLevinson*Bloomberg.net
(remove the star etc ....)

In article p0lCd.20055$wu4.12963@attbi_s52, Bob wrote:
Are you talking about WW2? I don't recall that many lives lost in the Cold
War. I served 8 years during the cold war and accidents excluded I do not
recall any casualties. I don't think you know what ur talking about.
And that's the facts Jack
...snipped...

Uh, seems to me that Korea and Viet Nam, to mention the bigger
conflicts, were fought during and as a result of cold war policies...


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 16:30:36 GMT, "Bob" wrote:

Greg
The conflicts you refer to below were not part of the Cold War. They were
wars started by the Democrat administrations. You are obviously not a
student of history. Why don't you take some courses at night? Maybe you'll
learn something. Get over the last election the left wing of our party lost
the election for us old Democrats. When they start believing , so-to-speak,
in motherhood and apple pie again, my grand old party will once again
dominate.
Greg get a life, wake up and smell the coffee.

You're mixing up your Limbaughisms. You are also creating
both sides, actually about a dozen sides, to some unnown
arguments that only you know about and then slinging insults
against all of them. What, precisely, is your point, other than
that you are a good little ditto head out for a gang bang ?

You're quite a case.

Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
Poland
Romania
Soviet sector of Germany

Lost because we wouldn't - thought we couldn't - resist. Then we learned
our lesson.

Damn close in Greece, Yugoslavia and Austria.

Had you forgotten, or did you never learn why the cold war began?

"Larry Levinson" wrote in message
...
The conflicts -- Vietnam, Korea -- were absolutely part of the Cold
War. The only reason we got involved at all was because the Russians
would be supporting the `other' side and our politicians would get
nervous about being tagged as the people who `lost' (fill in the
blank.)

Or, the Russians and/or Chinese would seek to
liberate
exploit
stir up trouble
free
overturn
right a wrong

(pick your version of events) and the U.S. would respond.

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:18:49 GMT, "Bob" wrote:

Ok, Reagan had huge deficits. Do you think it only cost a dollar and ninety
five cents to win the Cold War? Wasn't the deficit worth it? Years ago my
wife and I took a tour with a group to Russia. I asked the tour guide that
all we ever saw about Russia on TV was their military might. How come we
don't see it any more? The tour guides response to me was, "your President
Reagan broke us". Now Greg tell me if the deficit was worth it.
You are obviously a liberal democrat and nothing Bush or the Republicans do,
will you EVER agree with. I used to be a democrat when they were for the
working man. Like in the days of Truman, Roosevelt, and JFK. Now look at
who the leaders of my old party are.

We didn't win the Cold War, we just had a bigger credit line than they
did and outspent them. Now, we have to figure out how to pay back all
the money Reagan flushed in his insane effort to show up the Russians.
I knew Reagan was sending us into disaster and I've been a
conservative Republican my entire life. Hell, I VOTED for Reagan and
now think he turned out to be one of the worst presidents we've ever
had.

And news flash, neither party represents the working man. They
haven't for decades now.

Charlie Self wrote:


And it was Ike who sent the first U.S. "advisers" to 'Nam.

I think it was actually Truman, on September 27, 1950 when the U.S. established a
Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Saigon to aid the French Army.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Brian Henderson writes:
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:29:45 GMT, "Bob" wrote:

Is it because of the dollar being devalued? When the dollar goes up again
will they lower their prices? I think they are shooting their self in the
foot. Their previous prices is what made them so popular. If their prices
are the same or higher than Delta's, etc., I myself would prefer to buy
strictly American unless, they out source to China.

Because *ALL* prices are going up across the board. We've been
talking about this for months now, woodworking tools are going up in
price because they've been artificially low for years now. It won't
be just Grizzly, it'll be every brand taking a 10-20% increase over
the next couple months.

Indeed. The prices of commodity like lead, copper and iron have
increased by 30-40% over the past year. Add in 50% increase in
energy costs and it's no wonder prices have been increasing at a
rate greater than inflation. Caterpillar has increased prices
by 3% twice in the last 9 months to accomodate rising commodity
prices.

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:18:49 GMT, "Bob" wrote:

Ok, Reagan had huge deficits. Do you think it only cost a dollar and
ninety
five cents to win the Cold War? Wasn't the deficit worth it? Years ago
my
wife and I took a tour with a group to Russia. I asked the tour guide
that
all we ever saw about Russia on TV was their military might. How come we
don't see it any more? The tour guides response to me was, "your
President
Reagan broke us". Now Greg tell me if the deficit was worth it.
You are obviously a liberal democrat and nothing Bush or the Republicans
do,
will you EVER agree with. I used to be a democrat when they were for the
working man. Like in the days of Truman, Roosevelt, and JFK. Now look
at
who the leaders of my old party are.

We didn't win the Cold War, we just had a bigger credit line than they
did and outspent them. Now, we have to figure out how to pay back all
the money Reagan flushed in his insane effort to show up the Russians.
I knew Reagan was sending us into disaster and I've been a
conservative Republican my entire life. Hell, I VOTED for Reagan and
now think he turned out to be one of the worst presidents we've ever
had.

And news flash, neither party represents the working man. They
haven't for decades now.

They don't because the American people no longer hold them accountable.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
...
Brian Henderson writes:
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:29:45 GMT, "Bob" wrote:

Is it because of the dollar being devalued? When the dollar goes up
again
will they lower their prices? I think they are shooting their self in the
foot. Their previous prices is what made them so popular. If their prices
are the same or higher than Delta's, etc., I myself would prefer to buy
strictly American unless, they out source to China.

Because *ALL* prices are going up across the board. We've been
talking about this for months now, woodworking tools are going up in
price because they've been artificially low for years now. It won't
be just Grizzly, it'll be every brand taking a 10-20% increase over
the next couple months.

Indeed. The prices of commodity like lead, copper and iron have
increased by 30-40% over the past year. Add in 50% increase in
energy costs and it's no wonder prices have been increasing at a
rate greater than inflation. Caterpillar has increased prices
by 3% twice in the last 9 months to accomodate rising commodity
prices.


As I recall, Cat also reported that their costs for plate steel went up 105%
in the past year!

John

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in message
...

As I recall, Cat also reported that their costs for plate steel went up
105%
in the past year!

Amazing, isn't it? First we get anti-dumping trade restrictions reversed by
the WTO and then the price skyrockets. If we could build a steel mill
anywhere, now'd be the time.

"George" george@least wrote in message
...

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in message
...

As I recall, Cat also reported that their costs for plate steel went up
105%
in the past year!

Amazing, isn't it? First we get anti-dumping trade restrictions reversed
by
the WTO and then the price skyrockets. If we could build a steel mill
anywhere, now'd be the time.

It seems that the economic downturn lasted so long that many companies
closed mills. Now that the demand is way up internationally there is not
enough capacity to meet the demand. Add in the Chinese buying up all the
scrap they can get their hands on and the prices have gone WAY up... Also
add in the fact that the opportunity costs of opening a new mill are huge,
and the time to get one on line long, it's pretty hard for the industry to
respond to the high demand quickly... and with the investor's luck it's
arrival on the scene would probably correspond with a new downturn!

John
Glad I bought all my big iron in the past... except a big lathe that is. ;-)

Here's one of the reasons...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...l-prices_x.htm



On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:42:27 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:


"George" george@least wrote in message
...

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in message
...

As I recall, Cat also reported that their costs for plate steel went up
105%
in the past year!

Amazing, isn't it? First we get anti-dumping trade restrictions reversed
by
the WTO and then the price skyrockets. If we could build a steel mill
anywhere, now'd be the time.

It seems that the economic downturn lasted so long that many companies
closed mills. Now that the demand is way up internationally there is not
enough capacity to meet the demand. Add in the Chinese buying up all the
scrap they can get their hands on and the prices have gone WAY up... Also
add in the fact that the opportunity costs of opening a new mill are huge,
and the time to get one on line long, it's pretty hard for the industry to
respond to the high demand quickly... and with the investor's luck it's
arrival on the scene would probably correspond with a new downturn!

John
Glad I bought all my big iron in the past... except a big lathe that is. ;-)