From: Joe the Aroma on

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:464FCF2C.34211460(a)hotmail.com...
>
>
> Joe the Aroma wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> >> Eeyore wrote:
>> >> > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Boeing competes for its military contract sales.
>> >> >
>> >> > Airbus describes them as 'pork barrel contracts'.
>> >>
>> >> Boeing has congressmembers on payroll, so they'll get contracts.
>> >> It took a huge dust-up in 2002 (?) to keep the gov't from leasing
>> >> tanker planes from Boeing when it was *much* cheaper to buy them.
>> >
>> > Exactly the kind of thing that Airbus means. There's a closer watch on
>> > that form of intrinsic corruption in Europe.
>>
>>
>> No, in Europe they just directly give them cash.
>
> No. Airbus gets repayable loans on which they pay interest. It's an
> attractive
> rate of interest for sure that's less than they'd get from banks to be
> totally
> fair.
>
> Graham

A government loan is a subsidy. You think that the government would seize
their assets and shut Airbus down if they defaulted? What with the
inexplicable pride of several Western European nations riding on it?


From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on


Jeffrey Turner 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.
>
> It just as clearly applies to Chinese workers eventually losing their
> jobs to people in Burma or Nigeria thanks to "free trade."
>
What's interesting, because that did happen already in Japan, is that
eventually you run out of dirt poor people to shift the work to and then
every group on the planet is suddenly better off. The people of Japan
aren't in a state like the people of Nigeria even though the people of
the worse world took their old jobs.
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on


Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I wasn't sure, probably due to your use of the apostrophe.




--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"
From: Rudy Canoza on
Eeyore wrote:
>
> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
>>>
>>>> The two most important reasons for the huge cost differences in the US
>>>> vs countries like China and India is a place to live and medical care.
>>> Actually it's about basic produce like food and clothing too.
>>>
>>> As far as medical care goes, in the UK, the 'socialist' National Health Service that
>>> gives care to everyone costs about �1200 ($2400) p.a. per head of population > which is
>> a heck of a lot less than US health care costs, yet the US is forever > resistant to
>> adopt such a scheme that has much lower costs and overheads.
>>
>>
>> Too many horror stories about National Health.
>
> Such as ? I doubt you'll find anything happening here that doesn't happen in the USA too.

Queues.

People with health cover - admittedly, not everyone -
in the U.S. do not wait long for even very
sophisticated treatment. Long queues are an intrinsic
problem of UK and Canadian universal health care.


> We hear horror tories about US healthcare too - like how much it costs and how it means
> some ppl can't afford the most appropriate treatment !

Yep - life can be unfair.


> Plus we don't have laws forcing us not to buy cheap generic medicines.
>
> Graham
>
From: Rudy Canoza on
Eeyore wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
>
>> The two most important reasons for the huge cost differences in the US
>> vs countries like China and India is a place to live and medical care.
>
> Actually it's about basic produce like food and clothing too.
>
> As far as medical care goes, in the UK, the 'socialist' National Health Service that
> gives care

not much of it

>to everyone costs about �1200 ($2400) p.a. per head
of population which is
> a heck of a lot less than US health care costs, yet the US is forever resistant to
> adopt such a scheme that has much lower costs and overheads.

For your �1200 per year, you don't get much care. You
queue up interminably, for relatively simple items.



> I don't know what the situation is in China but in India you don't get medical care
> at all nor a pension when you retire.
>
> You can't even begin to make sensible comparisons.
>
> Graham
>