gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Matthew T. Russotto on 22 May 2007 14:33 In article <caa4i.17473$3P3.15595(a)newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Rudy Canoza <leif(a)norvege.no> wrote: > >There is not a diagnostic test in existence for which >the wait in the US would be even four weeks. Not quite true; I waited a month for an MR arthrogram. Never had to wait more than a week for an ordinary MRI, though, and twice I got them the same day I made the appointment. None of these were emergency or urgent care situations. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
From: Rudy Canoza on 22 May 2007 14:40 Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > In article <caa4i.17473$3P3.15595(a)newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > Rudy Canoza <leif(a)norvege.no> wrote: >> There is not a diagnostic test in existence for which >> the wait in the US would be even four weeks. > > Not quite true; I waited a month for an MR arthrogram. Never had to > wait more than a week for an ordinary MRI, though, and twice I got > them the same day I made the appointment. None of these were > emergency or urgent care situations. I knew when I wrote it it probably wasn't completely so; I was doing it for effect. The point is, it's extremely rare. Even under most managed care plans, you're going to get almost any diagnostic test done very quickly - much more quickly than in Canada. I had an intravenous pyelogram done a couple of years ago - that's another contrast-medium X-ray like the arthrogram - and I think my Kaiser doctor ordered it and I got it a week later.
From: Jeffrey Turner on 23 May 2007 08:13 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: >>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>>But Japan never subjected itself to "free market" principles. >>>>> >>>>>Within Japan, you are correct the economy is pretty controlled. And >>>>>you'll notice they've had serious problems. >>>> >>>>Not as serious as "free trade" countries like Mexico and Peru. >>>>Argentina had so much "free market" they had to close the banks. >>> >>>Argentina hardly had a free market since their money wasn't floating. >> >>Mexico's currency was floating, and their economy sank. Clinton had >>to bail out American bankers. > > What was your point again? That the "free market" doesn't lead to prosperity. Sure, it can make a few people obscenely wealthy. And with some luck, and a few reincarnations, you might be one of them, but that's not the same thing. --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 23 May 2007 08:45 Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>> >>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>> >>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>If China and India threaten to get too expensive - not likely in China >>>>>>with the gov't setting the (low) wages >>>>> >>>>>Actually I'm not sure they do. >>>> >>>>The "unions" are gov't-controlled. And gov't (and military) fat cats >>>>are the ones with ownership of the companies. >>> >>>No. What gave you that idea ? >> >>Global consumers buying $25 Chinese-made DVD players usually assume >>Chinese labor is cheap because the country has a limitless supply of >>poor workers. But the morally cumbersome truth is that the Chinese >>government systematically prevents workers from being paid the full >>value of their labor. > > What does that mean, "the full value of their labor"? It means paying them what their work is worth. > You sound like a > commie, Turner. When you work for pay, you engage at a wage you agreed > to with the employer. When you're a serf on the plantation, you take what the boss-man will give you. > Now if the employer then cheats you on pay or > something like that, you have a good argument, When the Chinese (or American) corporations use the power of the state to depress the level of wages... > but the idea that someone > should pay you some magical amount that equals all the value you add, > why should they hire you in the first place? What is the reason for > having employees if you can't make a profit on what they do? Exactly. Throw out the owners and run things as a cooperative. "I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." -Thomas Jefferson --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 23 May 2007 14:39
Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > > >>Eeyore wrote: > >> > >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>> > >>>>Eeyore wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>If China and India threaten to get too expensive - not likely in China > >>>>>>with the gov't setting the (low) wages > >>>>> > >>>>>Actually I'm not sure they do. > >>>> > >>>>The "unions" are gov't-controlled. And gov't (and military) fat cats > >>>>are the ones with ownership of the companies. > >>> > >>>No. What gave you that idea ? > >> > >>Global consumers buying $25 Chinese-made DVD players usually assume > >>Chinese labor is cheap because the country has a limitless supply of > >>poor workers. But the morally cumbersome truth is that the Chinese > >>government systematically prevents workers from being paid the full > >>value of their labor. > > > > What does that mean, "the full value of their labor"? > > It means paying them what their work is worth. > You are just begging the question. Should they be paid the entire amount they are an added value to the company they work for? In other words, if you need help still, should they be paid exactly enough that there is no profit from their efforts left over for anyone else including the company? > > You sound like a > > commie, Turner. When you work for pay, you engage at a wage you agreed > > to with the employer. > > When you're a serf on the plantation, you take what the boss-man will > give you. > The the extent that employees of GM who get free health care and are bankrupting the company are "serfs on the plantation", should they be getting the entire value add for their labours or should some be left over for the stockholders? > > Now if the employer then cheats you on pay or > > something like that, you have a good argument, > > When the Chinese (or American) corporations use the power of the state > to depress the level of wages... > What does that even mean? Are you saying when a corporation creates a monopoly and therefore can set the price, in this case in the purchase of labour? > > but the idea that someone > > should pay you some magical amount that equals all the value you add, > > why should they hire you in the first place? What is the reason for > > having employees if you can't make a profit on what they do? > > Exactly. Throw out the owners and run things as a cooperative. > So you want to essentially run the US like China under Mao? |