|
7 things about the economy
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "I am Tosk" wrote in message ... The roads and bridges are fine, and the dollar for dollar return in products is not as good when spent on highway maintenance as it would be in a decent sock factory. It's not the infrastructure that is holding back our manufacturing. It's the Un..... well, either way, we need to address the things that are killing the manufacturing base. Old instructor told me long ago, don't bother with the bee, go for the stinger... Scotty, we need to go for the stinger. The roads and bridges are dandy, until they collapse. Infrastructure is one of the things we really need to work on in this country. The reason they haven't been is .... no money. An otherwise healthy business climate must exist generating tax revenues is needed to pay for fixing the roads a bridges. A healthy business climate is something we don't have. |
7 things about the economy
|
7 things about the economy
|
7 things about the economy
On Jan 24, 9:35*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jan 24, 4:38 pm, I am Tosk wrote: In article f59dda3b-def7-4970-a98a-c5314f862444 @h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says... On Jan 24, 3:02 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Chinese are tightening their credit. I thinks Obama's problems just got worse. Especially if China wants some of that maturing US debt paid off. What happens if the USA just says, "No"? Just curious. Eisboch They'll quit selling their products here. That'll show us. I dare you to walk around your house and find 10 items you need to live life the way you do.. Then do an Internet search and see if you could have those items if the Chinese stopped making them or the parts for them... OK, you might be able to do it if you tried, but if everyone in the country was trying to buy a pair of socks from the last company in the US that made them (BTW I don't think anybody here does) we would run out pretty quickly. Scotty A huge part of the problem is the fact that we don't manufacture much stuff here. *IMO, we need to start making stuff here again. *Of I agree. course, we can't when unions think that unskilled labor assemblimg an outlet strip should earn $60k a year. What's wrong with them thinking that? Nothing. It's called what the market will bear. No, it's called greed. It's not market driven when the company has no choice but to pay. Collective bargaining = legalized coercion. In the end the workers priced themselves right out of a job. And if we all bought socks from the last US company making them, they'd have a banner year, expand, and we'd have the socks we need and more jobs to boot. Except that GM/Chrysler designed cars that nobody wanted. That dog won't hunt... if that were true there wouldn't be so many of them on the road. The companies simply became unprofitable, for many reasons. One large factor is the cost of labor, AKA unions. |
7 things about the economy
|
7 things about the economy
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote:
No, it's called greed. It's not market driven when the company has no choice but to pay. Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good." Collective bargaining = legalized coercion. I'm glad you finally see it. Although, I'm sure that you are in denial that a corporation is a collective by definition. |
7 things about the economy
On Jan 25, 2:19*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote: No, it's called greed. *It's not market driven when the company has no choice but to pay. Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good." You're basing your position on a fictional character? Awesome. Collective bargaining = legalized coercion. I'm glad you finally see it. *Although, I'm sure that you are in denial that a corporation is a collective by definition. Big difference in application, though. In a non-union environment, the company offers the jobs for a wage, and the workers have a choice to take it or not. The wage is driven by , among other factors, market conditions. In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to sustain the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the unions. The company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking workers, and will go under if it does not comply with the union's demands. It is essentially held hostage until bled dry. Easy concepts to grasp, if you'll just... think. |
7 things about the economy
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:52:08 -0800, Jack wrote:
On Jan 25, 2:19Â*pm, thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote: No, it's called greed. Â*It's not market driven when the company has no choice but to pay. Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good." You're basing your position on a fictional character? Awesome. Collective bargaining = legalized coercion. I'm glad you finally see it. Â*Although, I'm sure that you are in denial that a corporation is a collective by definition. Big difference in application, though. In a non-union environment, the company offers the jobs for a wage, and the workers have a choice to take it or not. The wage is driven by , among other factors, market conditions. In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to sustain the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the unions. The company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking workers, and will go under if it does not comply with the union's demands. It is essentially held hostage until bled dry. The entire history of the labor movement, not withstanding. Coercion is just as likely to come from management, as from the union. The entire concept of unions, is to balance the equation. If either side gets out of whack, the system doesn't work. You seem quite willing to accept the company's collective, take it or leave it position. I'll point out, that's many against one. With a union, it's many against many. Which is fairer? Easy concepts to grasp, if you'll just... think. While you're thinking, consider this. The strength of this country is the middle class, and the strength of the middle class correlates quite closely with union membership. Cause and effect? |
7 things about the economy
"Jack" wrote in message
... On Jan 25, 2:19 pm, thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote: No, it's called greed. It's not market driven when the company has no choice but to pay. Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good." You're basing your position on a fictional character? Awesome. You're basing your position on words from Rush? Equally Awesome. Collective bargaining = legalized coercion. I'm glad you finally see it. Although, I'm sure that you are in denial that a corporation is a collective by definition. Big difference in application, though. In a non-union environment, the company offers the jobs for a wage, and the workers have a choice to take it or not. The wage is driven by , among other factors, market conditions. Assuming there are other jobs. In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to sustain the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the unions. The company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking workers, and will go under if it does not comply with the union's demands. It is essentially held hostage until bled dry. No.. negotiated by the management and the union. Both have coercive elements in their position. Yes, there's a lag in wage adjustment due to market conditions, since it's a contract situation. The management (and the union) need to honor the contract, unless the company goes bankrupts (as what happened). Union workers don't generally strike in the middle of a contract, unless there are special circumstances. And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage, they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be other non-union shops, but there might not be. Easy concepts to grasp, if you'll just... think. I agree! -- Nom=de=Plume |
7 things about the economy
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:
And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage, they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be other non-union shops, but there might not be. Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states. |
7 things about the economy
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote: And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage, they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be other non-union shops, but there might not be. Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states. That's the "22 right-to-work-for-less" states. |
7 things about the economy
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:56 -0500, Harry wrote:
thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote: And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage, they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be other non-union shops, but there might not be. Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states. That's the "22 right-to-work-for-less" states. Yup, the map would seem to correspond to the lower wage states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_work.svg |
7 things about the economy
On Jan 25, 4:09*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:56 -0500, Harry wrote: thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote: And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage, they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be other non-union shops, but there might not be. Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states. That's the "22 right-to-work-for-less" states. Yup, the map would seem to correspond to the lower wage states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_work.svg The right to work states have the lowest cost of living. Meanwhile, those union states have the highest unemployment, closed down factories, biggest social problem, highest cost of living, etc. South Carolina has the new Boeing plant coming here. "CHICAGO—Boeing Co. said it would build a second final assembly line for its troubled 787 Dreamliner jet in South Carolina, a move that spurns the powerful aircraft machinists' union that had been negotiating with Boeing to locate the work at the current factory near Seattle." "It's the first time since 2006 that Boeing will assemble a commercial airplane outside of the Puget Sound area and provides the company with an assembly line beyond the reach of the labor union that has caused production headaches off and on for decades in Seattle." How are those unions working out for ya? |
7 things about the economy
"Jack" wrote in message
... On Jan 25, 4:09 pm, thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:56 -0500, Harry wrote: thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote: And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage, they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be other non-union shops, but there might not be. Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states. That's the "22 right-to-work-for-less" states. Yup, the map would seem to correspond to the lower wage states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_work.svg The right to work states have the lowest cost of living. Meanwhile, those union states have the highest unemployment, closed down factories, biggest social problem, highest cost of living, etc. South Carolina has the new Boeing plant coming here. "CHICAGO—Boeing Co. said it would build a second final assembly line for its troubled 787 Dreamliner jet in South Carolina, a move that spurns the powerful aircraft machinists' union that had been negotiating with Boeing to locate the work at the current factory near Seattle." "It's the first time since 2006 that Boeing will assemble a commercial airplane outside of the Puget Sound area and provides the company with an assembly line beyond the reach of the labor union that has caused production headaches off and on for decades in Seattle." How are those unions working out for ya? Reply: I really don't want to live in Wyoming, etc. -- Nom=de=Plume |
7 things about the economy
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 4:09 pm, thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:56 -0500, Harry wrote: thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote: And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage, they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be other non-union shops, but there might not be. Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states. That's the "22 right-to-work-for-less" states. Yup, the map would seem to correspond to the lower wage states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_work.svg The right to work states have the lowest cost of living. Meanwhile, those union states have the highest unemployment, closed down factories, biggest social problem, highest cost of living, etc. South Carolina has the new Boeing plant coming here. "CHICAGO—Boeing Co. said it would build a second final assembly line for its troubled 787 Dreamliner jet in South Carolina, a move that spurns the powerful aircraft machinists' union that had been negotiating with Boeing to locate the work at the current factory near Seattle." "It's the first time since 2006 that Boeing will assemble a commercial airplane outside of the Puget Sound area and provides the company with an assembly line beyond the reach of the labor union that has caused production headaches off and on for decades in Seattle." How are those unions working out for ya? Reply: I really don't want to live in Wyoming, etc. You wouldn't like south carolina, either. Its coastal areas are nice for a short visit, but it is about as backwards a state as you'll find in the USA these days. |
7 things about the economy
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:30:51 -0800, Jack wrote:
On Jan 25, 4:09Â*pm, thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:56 -0500, Harry wrote: thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote: And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage, they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be other non-union shops, but there might not be. Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states. That's the "22 right-to-work-for-less" states. Yup, the map would seem to correspond to the lower wage states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_work.svg The right to work states have the lowest cost of living. Meanwhile, those union states have the highest unemployment, closed down factories, biggest social problem, highest cost of living, etc. South Carolina has the new Boeing plant coming here. "CHICAGO—Boeing Co. said it would build a second final assembly line for its troubled 787 Dreamliner jet in South Carolina, a move that spurns the powerful aircraft machinists' union that had been negotiating with Boeing to locate the work at the current factory near Seattle." "It's the first time since 2006 that Boeing will assemble a commercial airplane outside of the Puget Sound area and provides the company with an assembly line beyond the reach of the labor union that has caused production headaches off and on for decades in Seattle." How are those unions working out for ya? Fine, you are the one complaining about unions. Oh, and the Boeing story seems to make a lie out of what you posted up-thread. "In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to sustain the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the unions. The company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking workers, and will go under if it does not comply with the union's demands. It is essentially held hostage until bled dry." It would seem the company has a choice, doesn't it? |
7 things about the economy
|
7 things about the economy
|
7 things about the economy
"I am Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:52:08 -0800, Jack wrote: On Jan 25, 2:19 pm, thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote: No, it's called greed. It's not market driven when the company has no choice but to pay. Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good." You're basing your position on a fictional character? Awesome. Collective bargaining = legalized coercion. I'm glad you finally see it. Although, I'm sure that you are in denial that a corporation is a collective by definition. Big difference in application, though. In a non-union environment, the company offers the jobs for a wage, and the workers have a choice to take it or not. The wage is driven by , among other factors, market conditions. In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to sustain the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the unions. The company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking workers, and will go under if it does not comply with the union's demands. It is essentially held hostage until bled dry. The entire history of the labor movement, not withstanding. Coercion is just as likely to come from management, as from the union. Not necessarily true. I have been in several unions and worked in and around union shops from CT to Texasasasas.... The only violence and "thuggery" I have ever seen is directly traceable to the unions, not the management. I have been in factorys that were voting, and never saw coercion from the mgt, but certainly did from the other side. This is real world expedience, I have posted about it before, I am sure you have seen it... You don't know much about history then... The entire concept of unions, is to balance the equation. If either side gets out of whack, the system doesn't work. You seem quite willing to accept the company's collective, take it or leave it position. I'll point out, that's many against one. With a union, it's many against many. Which is fairer? Are you asking us for our opinion, or should we just agree with yours? Really, if "everybody" thought the way you do, there would be no need to vote and 80% of the country wouldn't be non-union. Easy concepts to grasp, if you'll just... think. While you're thinking, consider this. The strength of this country is the middle class, and the strength of the middle class correlates quite closely with union membership. Cause and effect? This is just pie in the sky, there is no cause and effect. The middle class is mostly non-union and self employed. I don't believe it's the case that most middle class people are self-employed. -- Nom=de=Plume |
7 things about the economy
"I am Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... This is just pie in the sky, there is no cause and effect. The middle class is mostly non-union and self employed. Scotty Let me clear that last line up. What I meant was the the middle class is "made up of" non-union and/or self employed.. Sorry, I am sure the ones I have filtered are already all over this, hopefully you will not fall into that trap;) Scotty Partially, but I'm betting a significant, if not a majority of the middle class work for companies and are not self-employed. -- Nom=de=Plume |
7 things about the economy
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "I am Tosk" wrote in message This is just pie in the sky, there is no cause and effect. The middle class is mostly non-union and self employed. I don't believe it's the case that most middle class people are self-employed. Word games. It is accurate to state that the majority of middle class working people are either non-union, work for a non-union company *or* are self-employed. In fact, I think that pretty much covers *all* working people. Eisboch |
7 things about the economy
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:57:11 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
Word games. It is accurate to state that the majority of middle class working people are either non-union, work for a non-union company *or* are self-employed. In fact, I think that pretty much covers *all* working people. I think, including public workers, unions account for a little over 12% of the workforce. They had been a dwindling segment, but apparently, in the last several years, union membership has shown a bit of an uptick. |
7 things about the economy
On 24/01/2010 4:57 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:13:31 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: There will be no meaningful recovery until we find a way to replace all the jobs that we have sent offshore. Not sure I agree with the "replace all" comment, but I do certainly agree with the rest of the statement. I am not sure why you disagree with "all" unless you mean "all plus the new kids entering the market". Our economy has been based on the middle class having good jobs. We really have to start making things here again. Maybe we should have a telethon to collect money to rebuild the US infrastructure after we are done in Haiti.. If you use a term such as "all" or "every" it's almost always wrong. Some jobs won't be replaced. We can't all work for the government. Nothing would get done. |
7 things about the economy
On 25/01/2010 3:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:56:47 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: There are plenty of things we need in the infrastructure area. We just need to talk people into paying for it. The roads and bridges are fine, and the dollar for dollar return in products is not as good when spent on highway maintenance as it would be in a decent sock factory. It's not the infrastructure that is holding back our manufacturing. It's the Un..... well, either way, we need to address the things that are killing the manufacturing base. When you start building roads and bridges you also crank up the heavy equipment factories, the cement plants and the steel fabricators. There are also other infrastructure items like our failing sewer systems and water distribution that need work. We would put a lot of people to work if this wind generation scheme caught hold but the environmentalists will never let it happen. I just don't get it. Government spending on infrastructure may create some jobs in certain industries, but it needs to be paid for by tax revenues from somewhere. Tax revenues come mostly from income taxes on employed people..... 45 percent, I think. Point is, there has to be more private industry jobs hiring people who pay taxes than just those working on infrastructure improvements to pay for it. Otherwise, the US just continues to borrow money to create a few jobs. Eisboch None of this is being paid for, more debt, the same kind of debt that caused this depression. Congress needs to take Obama's credit card away, oh wait, congress is liberal-democrat....good luck. It isn't really that government doesn't have the money for the right things. It is about priorities and waste. Continuing to borrow money I suspect is no longer occuring. On he debt markets I see very little going into government paper to fund this debt. Democrats and banks are just "creatin" it, seriously. No one in their right mind is lending Obama #2 trillion and more to come at a stupid silly rate of 0.01% interest. This is hyperinflationary money creation going on. Hell, just print it. Which makes me wonder when the USD collapses, not if. They only call it debt as government has to account for itself as a loan to itself in a weird sort of way. |
7 things about the economy
On 24/01/2010 11:11 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:57:49 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:13:31 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: There will be no meaningful recovery until we find a way to replace all the jobs that we have sent offshore. Not sure I agree with the "replace all" comment, but I do certainly agree with the rest of the statement. I am not sure why you disagree with "all" unless you mean "all plus the new kids entering the market". Our economy has been based on the middle class having good jobs. We really have to start making things here again. Maybe we should have a telethon to collect money to rebuild the US infrastructure after we are done in Haiti.. If you use a term such as "all" or "every" it's almost always wrong. Some jobs won't be replaced. I agree a lot of auto workers are not going to be making cars but they could be making other things. I believe wind energy is a boondoggle but if people are willing to do it, it is not a bad place for factory workers to work. There are plenty of things we need in the infrastructure area. We just need to talk people into paying for it. What's wrong with wind turbines? They seem to work... of course, it'll require some investment... Then you invest. Don't ask government too, no need to. If you believe in it, and it makes money instead of being next years garbage, you will profit! Governments waste... last thing we need is more of it. Current policy is economic suicide. Pure and simple. |
7 things about the economy
On 25/01/2010 4:02 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ... What's wrong with wind turbines? They seem to work... of course, it'll require some investment... One problem is that they are notoriously over-rated in terms of their output capacity. Another big problem is environmentalists. Another big oops is that the optimum areas that large scale wind turbine generating plants would be located are typically remote with no existing way to get the power to the grid. The cost of getting the power to the grid can be enormous and full of additional environmental impacts and/or objections. Eisboch Actually, i would say serious technical problems. No wind, night time, people want to charge their cars does not work. Something to do with the laws of physics that our fantasy leaders can't over come. |
7 things about the economy
On 24/01/2010 6:35 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On 24/01/2010 3:57 PM, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:02:26 -0500, wrote: Chinese are tightening their credit. I thinks Obama's problems just got worse. Especially if China wants some of that maturing US debt paid off. What happens if the USA just says, "No"? Just curious. Short answer ... The dollar would be devalued and oil would cost more, among other things. Good answer, hyper inflation due to currency devaluation. And I really think that is the liberal game plan. Has been for over 2 years as nothing else explains the mad-hatter direction of government other than pure insanity, which may be true all the same. Here goes my view on how government is thinking on this depression. Government does not sees the problem as people not having money, they see homes in a recession pricing. It makes it attractive for a family to toss the keys to the banks and walk. Growth is needed to hide losses and screw ups. Part of the plan is getting people to put all the money in seemingly safe places, T-bills, money market, cash places. At ultra low interest rates. Now lets say let the dollar fall by say 75% in a rapid period of time, too fast to move out of cash and sell t-bills etc. Just stop honoring debt, just like Iceland just did. Who knows, they could be the pilot group. So if one woke up and oil went from $80 barrel to $320 a barrel, the government just devlaued it's $12 trillion dollar debt by 75%, as people get wage increases in the inflation cycle, and money is stuck in low interest, the currency debt and fiscal debt becomes depreciated on the backs of people with money. It is why I am in pure cash (can buy gold/stock/real-esate etc) on a click. But will not touch a morgage mutual, t-bill or cd/gic with a 10 foot poll. I view lending right now as toxic. Even if it is lending to government. The only way I would lend to government is with an infation clause and 5% premium without taxation. Otherwie a brick of gold looks pretty good. Lets take a scenario, person A buys $1000 of oil, say 12.5 barrels of it. Person B buys a T-bill at a meaningless interest rate. Then the dollar plumets as debt isn't honored against the currency itself. Person A still has 12.5 barels of oil worth $4000. Person B has $1000.10 that now can only purchase 1/4 of what it did not too long ago. Value currency depreciation. More people will get jobs if it goes far enough as then US goods become cheap like Chinese ones. Hyper inflation as coffee goes from $10 a tine to $40, but government doesn't give a damn about retired and people, they are just to milk for statism. Wages will not keep up. How this addresses housing is simple. If a home is $200K to build today, but is selling for $180K, and has a $200K morgage, after inflation it changes to perhaps $500K to build and $400k to buy. No idiot will oss the keys for that sweet deal. To understand government policy, it becomes easy once you realize they are the biggest meanist delinquent dysfunctional debtors going. A debt monger mindset and plent of self denial. Time will tell, but in 2010 some time we should see a big move down in USD value. Big move actually. Probably in the later hald as the mini recovery bubble pops. If you think hyperinflation is coming, claiming that you've got all cash isn't exactly where you want to be. You should be complete in a precious metals, since you may not be able to "click" and get it done, as the SEC would shut down the exchange. Also, you'll need to have the gold or whatever in your possession to be safe. Oh, and you're not too bright... if that wasn't obvious. No, I prefer stuff like coal, oil, natural gas and things we will need in a prolonged depression to live. Gold is at a value peek, might go higher. But not knowing gold markets I tend to stay away. People making real money at gold bought in 3 to 5 years ago. I don't even own any Walmart, even though I love the company as I see another round of household spending cuts coming. Middle class is starving for cash they don't have. This will reduce discretionay spending even further. But at the right time, after the big collapse, might find myslef buying shares Walmart. |
7 things about the economy
On 24/01/2010 11:18 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On 24/01/2010 6:35 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 24/01/2010 3:57 PM, wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:02:26 -0500, wrote: Chinese are tightening their credit. I thinks Obama's problems just got worse. Especially if China wants some of that maturing US debt paid off. What happens if the USA just says, "No"? Just curious. Short answer ... The dollar would be devalued and oil would cost more, among other things. Good answer, hyper inflation due to currency devaluation. And I really think that is the liberal game plan. Has been for over 2 years as nothing else explains the mad-hatter direction of government other than pure insanity, which may be true all the same. Here goes my view on how government is thinking on this depression. Government does not sees the problem as people not having money, they see homes in a recession pricing. It makes it attractive for a family to toss the keys to the banks and walk. Growth is needed to hide losses and screw ups. Part of the plan is getting people to put all the money in seemingly safe places, T-bills, money market, cash places. At ultra low interest rates. Now lets say let the dollar fall by say 75% in a rapid period of time, too fast to move out of cash and sell t-bills etc. Just stop honoring debt, just like Iceland just did. Who knows, they could be the pilot group. So if one woke up and oil went from $80 barrel to $320 a barrel, the government just devlaued it's $12 trillion dollar debt by 75%, as people get wage increases in the inflation cycle, and money is stuck in low interest, the currency debt and fiscal debt becomes depreciated on the backs of people with money. It is why I am in pure cash (can buy gold/stock/real-esate etc) on a click. But will not touch a morgage mutual, t-bill or cd/gic with a 10 foot poll. I view lending right now as toxic. Even if it is lending to government. The only way I would lend to government is with an infation clause and 5% premium without taxation. Otherwie a brick of gold looks pretty good. Lets take a scenario, person A buys $1000 of oil, say 12.5 barrels of it. Person B buys a T-bill at a meaningless interest rate. Then the dollar plumets as debt isn't honored against the currency itself. Person A still has 12.5 barels of oil worth $4000. Person B has $1000.10 that now can only purchase 1/4 of what it did not too long ago. Value currency depreciation. More people will get jobs if it goes far enough as then US goods become cheap like Chinese ones. Hyper inflation as coffee goes from $10 a tine to $40, but government doesn't give a damn about retired and people, they are just to milk for statism. Wages will not keep up. How this addresses housing is simple. If a home is $200K to build today, but is selling for $180K, and has a $200K morgage, after inflation it changes to perhaps $500K to build and $400k to buy. No idiot will oss the keys for that sweet deal. To understand government policy, it becomes easy once you realize they are the biggest meanist delinquent dysfunctional debtors going. A debt monger mindset and plent of self denial. Time will tell, but in 2010 some time we should see a big move down in USD value. Big move actually. Probably in the later hald as the mini recovery bubble pops. If you think hyperinflation is coming, claiming that you've got all cash isn't exactly where you want to be. You should be complete in a precious metals, since you may not be able to "click" and get it done, as the SEC would shut down the exchange. Also, you'll need to have the gold or whatever in your possession to be safe. Oh, and you're not too bright... if that wasn't obvious. To you, not obvious. My generalization about cash is I am not going to CD/GIC or loan it as a cash instrument, not even a money market and certainly not bonds or some silly morgage mutual. I don't "invest in cash" isn't the same as wanting some short term liquidity for opportunities and portfolio rebalancing. I have my reasons including if Obama drives the Dow to 8000 or lower it might be a minor repeat of last year....and like last year have opportunistic cash for the average in on the dip, its Obama's move. LOL. Or perhaps buy some gold. Just that China credit tightening and Japan banking with Obama chest pounding sounds like trouble. I don't think the US SEC can shut down a Canadian exchange. Have another drink. I definitely think you should put all your money in gold. Also, buy some land in a remote place and live there. The thought has occured to me. Would certainly guarantee my fiscal futures. |
7 things about the economy
On 24/01/2010 11:20 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On 24/01/2010 5:20 PM, thunder wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:02:26 -0500, Eisboch wrote: What happens if the USA just says, "No"? Just curious. It would be one hell of a crash, and 5-10 very rough years, but then... We'd have to get our own house in order, as no other country would want to finance our overspending ways. Personally, I don't think it would be all bad, but there are a lot easier ways to get our house in order. It would be playing with fire, and you never know how burned we would get. Iceland, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Venzuela, Argentina, Germany pre WW II all have some history on this. Generally not good for the standard of living which drops signifigantly. How far it drops depends a lot on the size of the default. $2 trillion ot the Chinese, you will notice it big time. Especially if the Saudis want Euros for USDs on the value drop -- could happen very fast. Get the Japanese banks to drop in the middle being a major holder of US debt... all hell could break loose when the germany banks fall. Just waiting for the music to stop. Please keep waiting (can you do this quietly?) Get back to us when the sky starts falling. You sound like Mike Hnter over in GM group area, LOL. He is just a loser GM zealot. Been wrong so many times he is hopeless. |
7 things about the economy
On 25/01/2010 4:06 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ... "I am wrote in message ... The roads and bridges are fine, and the dollar for dollar return in products is not as good when spent on highway maintenance as it would be in a decent sock factory. It's not the infrastructure that is holding back our manufacturing. It's the Un..... well, either way, we need to address the things that are killing the manufacturing base. Old instructor told me long ago, don't bother with the bee, go for the stinger... Scotty, we need to go for the stinger. The roads and bridges are dandy, until they collapse. Infrastructure is one of the things we really need to work on in this country. The reason they haven't been is .... no money. An otherwise healthy business climate must exist generating tax revenues is needed to pay for fixing the roads a bridges. A healthy business climate is something we don't have. Agreed. From a pure divident point of view, the risk/reward isn't there fo 9/10 companies. Serious problem going forward. If government could generate wealth, we would all be working for government. But someone has to do the work. |
7 things about the economy
|
7 things about the economy
|
7 things about the economy
On Jan 25, 6:53*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:30:51 -0800, Jack wrote: On Jan 25, 4:09*pm, thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:56 -0500, Harry wrote: thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:40:57 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote: And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage, they can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be other non-union shops, but there might not be. Let's not forget the 22 "Right to work" states. That's the "22 right-to-work-for-less" states. Yup, the map would seem to correspond to the lower wage states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_work.svg The right to work states have the lowest cost of living. Meanwhile, those union states have the highest unemployment, closed down factories, biggest social problem, highest cost of living, etc. South Carolina has the new Boeing plant coming here. "CHICAGO—Boeing Co. said it would build a second final assembly line for its troubled 787 Dreamliner jet in South Carolina, a move that spurns the powerful aircraft machinists' union that had been negotiating with Boeing to locate the work at the current factory near Seattle." "It's the first time since 2006 that Boeing will assemble a commercial airplane outside of the Puget Sound area and provides the company with an assembly line beyond the reach of the labor union that has caused production headaches off and on for decades in Seattle." How are those unions working out for ya? Fine, you are the one complaining about unions. *Oh, and the Boeing story seems to make a lie out of what you posted up-thread. "In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the union through coercion. *As we've seen, the market's ability to sustain the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the unions. The company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking workers, and will go under if it does not comply with the union's demands. *It is essentially held hostage until bled dry." It would seem the company has a choice, doesn't it? They had no choice but to vacate their home plant, in their home state, and spend millions building another plant all the way across the country just to get away from a union that "has caused production headaches off and on for decades in Seattle." That's a legacy to be proud of for the union. Boeing will find that, unlike their west coast union employees, South Carolina workers aren't whiny-ass bitches. |
7 things about the economy
nom=de=plume wrote:
"I am Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:52:08 -0800, Jack wrote: On Jan 25, 2:19 pm, thunder wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote: No, it's called greed. It's not market driven when the company has no choice but to pay. Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good." You're basing your position on a fictional character? Awesome. Collective bargaining = legalized coercion. I'm glad you finally see it. Although, I'm sure that you are in denial that a corporation is a collective by definition. Big difference in application, though. In a non-union environment, the company offers the jobs for a wage, and the workers have a choice to take it or not. The wage is driven by , among other factors, market conditions. In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to sustain the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the unions. The company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking workers, and will go under if it does not comply with the union's demands. It is essentially held hostage until bled dry. The entire history of the labor movement, not withstanding. Coercion is just as likely to come from management, as from the union. Not necessarily true. I have been in several unions and worked in and around union shops from CT to Texasasasas.... The only violence and "thuggery" I have ever seen is directly traceable to the unions, not the management. I have been in factorys that were voting, and never saw coercion from the mgt, but certainly did from the other side. This is real world expedience, I have posted about it before, I am sure you have seen it... You don't know much about history then... The entire concept of unions, is to balance the equation. If either side gets out of whack, the system doesn't work. You seem quite willing to accept the company's collective, take it or leave it position. I'll point out, that's many against one. With a union, it's many against many. Which is fairer? Are you asking us for our opinion, or should we just agree with yours? Really, if "everybody" thought the way you do, there would be no need to vote and 80% of the country wouldn't be non-union. Easy concepts to grasp, if you'll just... think. While you're thinking, consider this. The strength of this country is the middle class, and the strength of the middle class correlates quite closely with union membership. Cause and effect? This is just pie in the sky, there is no cause and effect. The middle class is mostly non-union and self employed. I don't believe it's the case that most middle class people are self-employed. Look into it and come back to us with some numbers. I don't believe the sky is falling, but you never know. |
7 things about the economy
Harry wrote:
Look into it and come back to us with some numbers. I don't believe the sky is falling, but you never know. Sorry, "flajims," but the real Harry uses a mac and doesn't post as a Harry using "Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/2009)" |
7 things about the economy
Canuck57 wrote:
On 25/01/2010 4:02 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... What's wrong with wind turbines? They seem to work... of course, it'll require some investment... One problem is that they are notoriously over-rated in terms of their output capacity. Another big problem is environmentalists. Another big oops is that the optimum areas that large scale wind turbine generating plants would be located are typically remote with no existing way to get the power to the grid. The cost of getting the power to the grid can be enormous and full of additional environmental impacts and/or objections. Eisboch Actually, i would say serious technical problems. No wind, night time, people want to charge their cars does not work. Something to do with the laws of physics that our fantasy leaders can't over come. Our fantasy leaders are a bunch of Don Quixotes. |
7 things about the economy
Harry wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 25/01/2010 4:02 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... What's wrong with wind turbines? They seem to work... of course, it'll require some investment... One problem is that they are notoriously over-rated in terms of their output capacity. Another big problem is environmentalists. Another big oops is that the optimum areas that large scale wind turbine generating plants would be located are typically remote with no existing way to get the power to the grid. The cost of getting the power to the grid can be enormous and full of additional environmental impacts and/or objections. Eisboch Actually, i would say serious technical problems. No wind, night time, people want to charge their cars does not work. Something to do with the laws of physics that our fantasy leaders can't over come. Our fantasy leaders are a bunch of Don Quixotes. Sorry, "flajims," but the real Harry uses a mac and doesn't post as a Harry using "Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)" |
7 things about the economy
Harry wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 25/01/2010 4:02 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... What's wrong with wind turbines? They seem to work... of course, it'll require some investment... One problem is that they are notoriously over-rated in terms of their output capacity. Another big problem is environmentalists. Another big oops is that the optimum areas that large scale wind turbine generating plants would be located are typically remote with no existing way to get the power to the grid. The cost of getting the power to the grid can be enormous and full of additional environmental impacts and/or objections. Eisboch Actually, i would say serious technical problems. No wind, night time, people want to charge their cars does not work. Something to do with the laws of physics that our fantasy leaders can't over come. Our fantasy leaders are a bunch of Don Quixotes. -- Harry has access to a PC and is perfectly capable of using it to make a convincing spoof, as we have already seen. In fact we have seen screen shots of his desktop which included spoofing software. One might ask oneself if someone has spoofing software on his desk top, would he be likely to use it? Ask your self these questions. Is this post a spoof? Am I responding to a spoof? Why am I reading posts that are likely to be spoofs? |
7 things about the economy
Harry wrote:
Harry wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 25/01/2010 4:02 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... What's wrong with wind turbines? They seem to work... of course, it'll require some investment... One problem is that they are notoriously over-rated in terms of their output capacity. Another big problem is environmentalists. Another big oops is that the optimum areas that large scale wind turbine generating plants would be located are typically remote with no existing way to get the power to the grid. The cost of getting the power to the grid can be enormous and full of additional environmental impacts and/or objections. Eisboch Actually, i would say serious technical problems. No wind, night time, people want to charge their cars does not work. Something to do with the laws of physics that our fantasy leaders can't over come. Our fantasy leaders are a bunch of Don Quixotes. Sorry, "flajims," but the real Harry uses a mac and doesn't post as a Harry using "Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)" -- Harry has access to a PC and is perfectly capable of using it to make a convincing spoof, as we have already seen. In fact we have seen screen shots of his desktop which included spoofing software. One might ask oneself if someone has spoofing software on his desk top, would he be likely to use it? Ask your self these questions. Is this post a spoof? Am I responding to a spoof? Why am I reading posts that are likely to be spoofs? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com