gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Eeyore on 19 May 2007 19:50 "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > > > > Losing your job to someone who'll work for half the wages *so* often > > > leads to prosperity. > > > > Why stop at half the wages. China and India can do it for far far less. > > > Don't the people of those countries need to live too? It costs less there. When I asked in about 2000, basic semi-skilled factory workers in Bombay in the electronics sector earnt about $80 monthly. It was less in China but they typically get board and lodging there in company hostels. Graham
From: Eeyore on 19 May 2007 20:02 "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: > Airbus is a subsidized company Wrong. It's a commercial company just like Boeing. It receives no actual subsidies although Boeing likes to make it that it does. The argument is over government support in terms of long loans whereas Boeing receives support in a different way by means of lucrative military contracts. > that include a number EU countries. Airbus is owned by EADS NV another commercial company formed by the merger of 3 large aerospace companies in France, Spain and Germany and until recently 20% of it was owned by BAE Systems (formerly British SAerospace). > It is also on extremely hard times. It's overspent on the A380 and someone fucked up royally on the interior fitting of them AIUI. It's hardly likely to fail. Some years ago it overtook Boeing in annual sales figures for commercial aircraft and they're neck and neck year in year out now. Graham
From: Jeffrey Turner on 19 May 2007 21:10 Eeyore wrote: > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > >>No. Debt has long been known to be an economic stimulus. > > > Since when have high levels of personal debt been an economic stimulus ? Boom and > bust sounds more like it. I was talking about gov't borrowing. But you can live high off the hog on your credit cards for a little while too. --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt
From: Jeffrey Turner on 19 May 2007 21:16 Eeyore wrote: > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > >>Losing your job to someone who'll work for half the wages *so* often >>leads to prosperity. > > > Why stop at half the wages. China and India can do it for far far less. It just as clearly applies to Chinese workers eventually losing their jobs to people in Burma or Nigeria thanks to "free trade." --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt
From: Jeffrey Turner on 19 May 2007 21:17
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >> >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>> >>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>> >>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Brent P wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <i0n3i.12249$j63.8686(a)newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Brent P wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In article <134rmaf9jljvrb9(a)corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Brent P wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>In article <1179427123.321229.149360(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>As to the minimum wage, there is no debate about having it. Rather, >>>>>>>>>>>>>the debate is about the amount. There is no denial that the minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>wage results in some loss of jobs. But there also is no denial that >>>>>>>>>>>>>the minimum wage increases wages for many people above and beyond what >>>>>>>>>>>>>the free market would pay. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>And prices some people too high for the lowest rung of the job market, >>>>>>>>>>>>leaving them as dependents of the government (taxpayer). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>But if there's work that needs doing someone will hire them and train >>>>>>>>>>>them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Not when there is someone else (an illegal alien) willing to do it for less >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>And not when some alternative mix of inputs, such as >>>>>>>>>more capital equipment and/or a few >>>>>>>>>higher-skilled/higher-waged workers in place of a >>>>>>>>>larger number of low-skilled/low-wage workers, is feasible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Low wages kill automation. We could do with fewer people making more >>>>>>>>money each with less pressure on our infastructure by using automation. >>>>>>>>But instead illegal immigration is allowed to go on unchecked to keep >>>>>>>>labor costs down. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If you don't keep labour costs down, everything will be imported from >>>>>>>some place with low labour costs. Duh. Or do you want to block trade? >>>>>> >>>>>>That is a big problem with "free trade." Eventually the bulk of >>>>>>everyone has the standard of living of the poorest nation. Or >>>>>>Mississippi. >>>>> >>>>>Or the poor people become better off and move up the economic ladder. >>>> >>>>Losing your job to someone who'll work for half the wages *so* often >>>>leads to prosperity. >>> >>>I was talking about the poor all over the world. Bringing everyone up to >>>the basics is perhaps something to value at least a little before you >>>make sure every American has five DVD players. >> >>Can the Walton's afford a DVD player? Shocking! The problem is, they >>don't manifest enough demand to employ a lot of DVD makers. Supply-side >>economics doesn't work. > > Do you think that the "Walton's" in 2007 don't have a DVD player? I wasn't referring to a 70s sitcom, but to Sam Walton's heirs. --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt |