Re: Mountains Rush and Moore

From: John E. Jaku-Hing (johnejakuhing_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/18/04 

Date: 18 Aug 2004 06:17:24 -0700

"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Z4sUc.59$ph4.37@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
> "John E. Jaku-Hing" <johnejakuhing@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b4cbbde8.0408170652.45c907e5@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > I'll be fine. Thanks for asking.
> > >
> >
> > You will probably not be fine.
>
> I'll be fine because I'll be prepared. Less talk and more do does wonders.

>
> >Mexican labor is a lot cheaper for fixing my house than any
> > contractor in the area. They often do a very good job too.
>
> As long as they are here legally, I say more power to them!
>
> > > Then I suggest we Americans work together to do something about it
> instead
> > > of whining here.
> > >
> >
> > The other poster is right about our descent into the abyss. Ms.
> > Chao's assertion that blue collar services will dominate in the coming
> > years is a very scary concept.
>
> If it were important to the American people, they'd make it profitable. If
> other people are willing to do the job for less money, and they can do it
> good enough, a company would be irresponsible to not switch employees. If
> the employees cannot make money for the company, it's irresponsible for the
> company to keep them. This is basic economics. Now, if the current employees
> are willing to take less money in order to be profitable again, all the
> better for them. That's part of reality. If the American people thought this
> was a problem, then they'd be willing to pay more money for the same
> product. The American people have decided that cheaper products are more
> important than maintaining jobs. Business is responding appropriately to the
> market demands.
>

Business is not efficient in dealing with upcoming problems, and has
sort of a schitzophrenic persionality all it's own, bordering on
obsessive-compulsive. The nature of business is to squeeze every drop
of profit out of a resource or service, then promptly deem it obsolete
and unnecessary and move on. This flies in the face of how humans
adapt to change. What you are suggesting is that the world revolve
around business. The nature of government (when implemented properly)
is to perform the will of the people. Our economy, as such, cannot
handle the underlying volatility of a purely free market society.
Libertarians have very good intentions, but until I can see a complex
computer simulation model run with 100% accuracy concluding a stable
society, I would just as soon infer that running a purely free market
society will inevitably lead to gigantic boom and bust cycles, with
bust cycles often ending in bloody revolution and regime change. The
US would no longer exist. Period.

>
> Any real estate agent who said that is a dumbass.

True dat.

>
> Further incentives MUST be put into place to secure the
> > future of tomorrow's engineers and scientists on a more voluntarily
> > basis. They must realize that their industry will not be sold out in
> > the decades ahead. The illusion that car mechanics have a more secure
> > career than programmers/engineers must be shattered. Fixing cars is
> > not the future of the US.
>
> The American public needs to be sold on this. Unless the public accepts this
> and changes the market, the problem will get worse. The fault lies not with
> business, but with ourselves.

Intellectualism and the pursuit of higher education have always been
more important over "business". Business is simply a glue for society
to remain stable. It doesn't DO anything. Education is paramount
over trade. Always was. Always will be. Even after the experiment
with democracy known as the United States has concluded many years
from now. (50 or so years)

>
> Government spending must be reduced in
> > other ways (i.e. welfare, bull*** medicare bills) to alleviate the
> > tax burden of the Silicon Valley programmer whose adjusted salary now
> > does not cover living expenses.
>
> I agree. If I had my way, I'd cut the budget to about 2/3 of what it is, and
> the only reason I wouldn't cut it in half is because the interest on the
> national debt takes a big chunk.
>
> I'd probably cut NASA. I'd cut the military. I'd eliminate as much of
> Medicare as I could. I'd cut housing. Government shouldn't be in the
> business of providing housing.
>
> More to the point, there would be absolutely nothing off budget. Every penny
> in and every penny out would be counted. There would be two budgets: one for
> trust funds, where the money isn't supposed to be spent on anything other
> than the purpose of the trust fund, and the general budget. If this had been
> done in the past, we'd be able to see that Clinton's balanced budget was
> just a phantom. One of the ways of hiding the deficit is to not spend trust
> fund income.
>
> I'd also kill a lot of tax cuts. I see no reason why capital gains should be
> taxed differently than wages. A dollar of capital gains spends the same way
> as a dollar of wages.

I actually disagree. Capital gains is the reward for risking one's
notional

>
> Some national debt is a useful tool for managing money. A national debt that
> can't be paid off with the full income from an entire administration is
> absurd.

Debt is never good. After the national housing bubble bursts *big
time* in this country, you'll see where massive debt takes us. The
Japanese only clung on because of their high savings rate after their
bubble burst.

>
> >Also, do not lecture anyone about changing careers after one
> > spends 50-100K on an education, especially when that major is a
> > passion for them.
>
> If that's what it takes to survive, then tough.

Uh...a very trite rebuttal. Please tell me that your mind is more
open than this. Not enough bright minds = reduced applicant pool for
CIA intelligence/defense work = reduced national security = we're up
*** creek and are no longer a superpower = China becomes the new
superpower.

>
> It may be easier if you were a carpenter who
> > learned their trade from the school of "hard knocks" to switch to some
> > other arbitrary field, but the flexibility does not exist for someone
> > who is much more ossified into their field.
>
> Too bad for them. If they can't handle it, then it's Darwin in action.

Don't complain to me if "Darwin in action" results in the destruction
of the US because we've devolved into a service oriented society.

>
> > > Why *should* the government do that? Why shouldn't the private sector do
> it
> > > entirely by itself? Where in the Constitution does the government have
> the
> > > obligation to do so?
> > >
> >
> > You are using an idealogical argument to rebut the poster's more
> > pragmatic one.
>
> If "pragmatic" means "whine about life".

I like to whine about not losing our national security. I suppose
that's what makes me "pragmatic".

>
> If the
> > government is good at initiating R&D projects, then this route
> > *should* be considered. The constitution has nothing to do with this
> > argument.
>
> The Constitution has to do with the limits of government authority. It
> doesn't matter how good the government is at something, if they don't have
> the legal authority to do something they shouldn't be doing it.
>

Ah...I love the Constituion. I especially like the way government
implements it's content. Freedom of speech limitations, illegal
search and seizure. Gotta love the way the constitution is being used
for toilet paper nowadays.

> The constitution doesn't mention that I shouldn't murder
> > anyone either.
>
> It doesn't have to. State laws cover that.
>
> > > How do you think the
> > > > Internet started? Could private industry have created the Inter as we
> know
> > > > it?
> > >
> > > Sure, if there were a market for it.
> >
> > Market, market. People overglorify capitalism like it's actually akin
> > to patriotism.
>
> With good reason. Capitalism made this country what it is.

Capitalism is a relatively new concept in American history. Many
people think that capitalism is some system forged with the founding
of this country. Wrong. It's about 100 years old, and statistically
unproven yet. People make it out to be the mantra of the U.S.
government. China is the pinnacle of how capitalism should be
exercised, according to it's idealogues. They're much more
capitalistic than we are. Maybe you should move there since you like
it so much?

>
>
> > > > Perhaps the space station can eventually become a private industry
> entity?
> > >
> > > I'd prefer it become a re-entry entity.
> > >
> >
> > The space industry must survive, and it should be private to reduce
> > the red tape and overall cost. Only small minds don't see the benefit
> > of the program.
>
> I happen to agree.
>
> > > >Gore would never have let this happen and certainly not to this degree.
> > >
> > > Please provide some verifiable evidence to support your statement.
> > >
> >
> > Gore would not turn back the clock on stem cell research and try to
> > incorporate a puritanical, "leave it to beaver" nightmare sitcom into
> > our society,
>
> That's nice. Please provide verifiable references.

Gore is a known proponent of scientific research. He's an
environmentalist as well. It was pretty obvious in his stump speeches
and his track record for supporting the sciences. But since you
didn't read the Economist essay I offered you and glibly remarked on
the reference instead, here goes:

http://www.sigmaxi.org/programs/prizes/honor.gore.shtml
http://www.ibiblio.org/icky/speech2.html

Bush is a known religous zealot who doesn't like government
intervention, except when it comes to religious issues such as
abortion and gay marriage. Church groups get excited about him
because they actually believe that he'll somehow "turn back the clock"
and bring us back to a more wholesome time (ala "Leave it to Beaver"
analogy). If one of his daughters breaks her back (God forbid) in a
skiing accident, you can be that he'll be the first to initiate an
underground research lab having their scientists killing as many stem
cells as possible in order to repair her broken spine. Any father
would want to do that. But, why ban the use of stem cells in the
first place? It makes no logical sense.

Incidently, people don't realize that Gore's policies was even more
hawkish than Bush is. Nieve people assume that because he's a lefty,
that he's a pacifist tree hugger. I would venture that a mushroom
cloud would be over Tora Bora as a response to 9/11.

>
> > > > : Well, after all, he invented the Internet. How would Gore have
> stopped
> it?
> > > >
> > > > By paying more attention to technology in all areas rather than
> strictly
> > > > from the military angle.
> > >
> > > And that's different than the way it's always been done in what way?
> > >
> >
> > The market is not collaborative enough to have created the internet.
>
> Prove it.

Gore might as well have invented the internet. Without the internet,
we would be running several proprietary protocol. Remember my thesis:
business is not out to develop standards in any way, since short term
profitiability is contradictory to these initiatives. IPX, DECnet,
BITNET would all be running. Chat rooms would not exist.

>
> > Corporations in this country are short minded, and concentrate on
> > quarterly results without looking at long term objectives and the "big
> > picture".
>
> Why should they do anything different, since that's what the market wants?

The market will not save us when oil is at $100/barrel (it's coming
baby, hang on!) after Hubbert's peak is realized. The 70's proved
that with a small blip on the radar known as the OPEC embargo. The
upcoming post-oil era will be very difficult to manage. All the
"chicken little" suggestions come to mind: famine, war, disease, etc.
Business will not care to respond to millions dying from the plague.
No amount of patiotism and capitalism will stop it. We talk a lot of
*** about preemptive military strikes, but when it comes to an
upcoming energy crisis from the oil fields running dry...silence.

>
> > > W has paid way too much attention to the military
> > > > and ignored the rest.
> > >
> > > Please provide verifiable evidence as to the specific amount of
> attention he
> > > is required to pay to a given area.
> > >
> >
> > Stem cell research.
>
> That's nice. Now answer the question I asked.

Gore is a proponent of science. Bush is a throwback to puritanical
times. The latter sounds better on paper and gives you that "warm
apple pie" feeling, but doesn't get the job done.

>
> > > He continues to prove that the military, while
> > > > necessary, is overblown
> > >
> > > Please define "overblown". Is that related to the definition of "is"?
> > >
> >
> > Bloated was what the poster meant, I believe. Pork laden contracts
> > are a cancer to our military, becoming more malignant every year. I
> > worked in defense...I know that cold war era weapon funding is
> > increasing, not decreasing.
>
> I happen to agree. Read "The Pentagon Underground", by Dina Rasor.
> http://www.chris-winter.com/Erudition/Reviews/D_Rasor/Puntergnd.html
>
> I've had two copies (and lost them both by lending). Chrysler makes cars
> with guarantees- why can't they produce tanks with guarantees? I see no
> reason why the military should be funding fish farms in Hawaii.
>

True dat.

> > > >THAT focus has cost us in other IT related areas not related to
> > > > the military.
> > >
> > > You haven't shown that the government has any responsibility or even
> > > authority to do any different.
> > >
> >
> > Corruption reigns supreme in companies like LM and Boeing. Government
> > cannot keep a lid on the scandals that fly out of these contractors
> > day in and day out.
>
> *Fine*. Then stop buying their products, and tell the company why. The
> American public needs to do this. Only when a company can see that it's
> behavior is costing it money will it change. Government action is just
> another expense. If the public thought that Boeing's behavior was important,
> then the public would make that clear by not flying on Boeing planes. If
> people thought that local businesses were more important than low prices,
> they wouldn't shop at WalMart. It's a lot easier to whine about government
> than it is to win the hearts and minds of the public- but that's the only
> way to get real action.
>
> > > > : Please provide detailed answers. While your at it, please provide
> verifiable
> > > > : references to my party affiliation.
> > > >
> > > > Alright I guess you're a liberal Democrat. Who knew?
> > >
> > > You've clearly attended the Bob Haller school of investigation. Still
> > > waiting for verifiable answers.
> > >
> > > > : I'm a writer. I also prepare legal documents, I prepare taxes, I
> manage
> a
> > > > : construction office, I manage a private finance company and I am a
> real
> > > > : estate consultant specializing in tax delinquent properties. I've
> even
> been
> > > > : hired to design and build websites, and, since I maintain my own
> computer
> > > > : equipment and have the tools and software, I occasionally do
> computer
> > > > : repair.
> > > >
> > > > Do you have an accounting degree?
> > >
> > > Nope. Haven't needed one.
> >
> > If you are illusioned that blue collar work and job hopping will
> > continue to work for you or people like you, please read this essay
> > from The Economist.
>
> I've created my own jobs for the last several years.
>
> > > >So you buy judgements and liens that are
> > > > on properties?
> > >
> > > Sometimes. I also buy the properties directly. I mostly work as a
> > > consultant.
> >
> > Housing bubble is right around the corner. This bubble is HUGE!
> > Better cash out now.
>
> I hold for the long term, although I just sold 5 lots I paid a total of $80
> for in 1998 for $350 each. Including the taxes and other expenses I've paid
> over time, that's over 500% ROI. Few deals are that good.
>
> Can't
> > > find a job? Make one! Bill Gates is a college dropout, and look where
> he's
> > > at.
> >
> > Businesses are a high risk venture, not suitable for most people.
>
> Exactly. Every business started with a person taking the risk. Most fail,
> but some don't. They hire other people. It's people like Bill Gates who are
> responsible for creating jobs, not George Bush or John Kerry.

Your pyramid/matrix schemes are not business. I could easily become a
millionaire over 1-2 years if I quit my job and began a predatory
lending business fleecing old people out of their homes with
outrageous interest rates and the imminent foreclosure. Ethics keeps
me from sinking so low. Plus, there's more to life than money, like
learning, sex, and snowboarding :).

John E. Jaku.........................................HING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quantcast