Just a reminder for those who are stupid enough to stand in the cold
at 4:00am waiting for some idiot mall or big-box store to open for
Friday's hoped for binge of consumer excess.
Read the labels! This is where your money is going:
http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20080513-64857.html
Which is what this was about:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7941425.stm
There is a reason that Harbor Freight tool is $20.
(Aside from it being marginal garbage to begin with...)
Now let's go shopping! <ugh>
This morning's news consisted of minute by minute updates on traffic
patterns to all the local malls and WalMarts, constant reminders to
hit the stores before the crap is gone, and everybody on the air wants
a new big screen with a life span of < two years. Baaa aaa aaa aa.
Perhaps it's just me, but I find this all utterly disgusting.
Just call me Scrooge, 'cause I'm not spending one thin dime on
anything imported - leaving cigarettes, booze and hookers.
Ho, ho, ho, indeed. :)
Greg G.
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:40:23 -0500, the infamous "Bill"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>SORRY, I mean't to type I DON'T like to see the bickering.
>
> Remember Spock's famous quote?
>
> "Could you please continue your petty bickering? I find it most
> interesting."
>
Data on Next Generation said that. Spock may have said it also, but I
doubt it.
Puckdropper
--
I shellaced while waiting for Sim City to run.
HeyBub said:
>Greg G. wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps it's just me, but I find this all utterly disgusting.
>> Just call me Scrooge, 'cause I'm not spending one thin dime on
>> anything imported - leaving cigarettes, booze and hookers.
>> Ho, ho, ho, indeed. :)
>>
>>
>
>Sigh. When each nation does what it does best, and freely trades with other
>nations, all the people benefit. Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations"
>settled all this hash in the 18th Century.
A simple minded treatise from the 18th century is hardly convincing of
anything. We're not talking Swiss chocolates, BMWs and Cannolis here.
This is not free commerce between two similarly developed countries.
In 1985 we sold China $3,855.7M and imported $3,861.7M. A -6M deficit.
Not so bad...
In 2008 our trade deficit with China was -268,039.8 Million.
Exporting $69,732.8M and importing $337,772.6M.
Dude, they're not buying whatever it is we're selling...
But, with that scenario in mind, what are we best at? What can or do
we sell to the world? Crooked bankers, bad debt, and war machinery?
Con men? Corn and wheat? Cigarettes? Oh, happy day.
How about something a bit more recent and to the point: From the
United States Business and Industry Council's Alan Tonelson, "The Race
to the Bottom: Why a Global Worker Surplus and Uncontrolled Free Trade
are Sinking American Living Standards."
>If I've got $6.00, I can buy a U.S. made hammer. Or, I can buy a
>Chinese-made hammer for $3.00 and have money left over for nails (also made
>in China)!
>
>The latter condition has to be better than the former.
Great, a pot-metal hammer and a box of galvanized nails that rust and
the heads pop off of. Good stuff! Been there, tried that junk.
Yet what I no longer have is an employed neighbor, another foundry,
and a quality product produced by an accountable company due to its
residence and reachability on home soil. What I do have is another
dictatorship funding its barons and nuclear military expansion with
western consumer dollars. Smart.
Greg G.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Greg G. wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps it's just me, but I find this all utterly disgusting.
>> Just call me Scrooge, 'cause I'm not spending one thin dime on
>> anything imported - leaving cigarettes, booze and hookers.
>> Ho, ho, ho, indeed. :)
>>
>>
>
> Sigh. When each nation does what it does best, and freely trades with
> other nations, all the people benefit. Adam Smith in his "Wealth of
> Nations" settled all this hash in the 18th Century.
>
> If I've got $6.00, I can buy a U.S. made hammer. Or, I can buy a
> Chinese-made hammer for $3.00 and have money left over for nails (also
> made in China)!
>
Hell - you could buy the $6 US made hammer, and whack your neighbor in the
head with it, and steal his nails. Might as well grab his cigarettes, his
booze and his wife while you're at it... (unless she's ugly, then refer to
the first part of this plan).
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Nov 30, 5:32=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > dpb <[email protected]> writes:
> >> Larry Jaques wrote:
> >> ...
>
> >>>> But, with that scenario in mind, what are we best at? =A0What can or=
do
> >>>> we sell to the world? =A0...
> >>>> ... Corn and wheat? =A0...
> >> The ag export business is one of if not the largest positive
> >> contributors to the trade deficit we have yet we can't get
> >> congress-critters to move on several outstanding trade agreements to
> >> further open certain (primarily South/Central-American at this time)
> >> markets by eliminating or substantially reducing their currently high
> >> import duties... :(
>
> > You mean like the US tariffs on Sugar?
>
> I'm not sure; as not sugar producer I don't know if it also in these
> agreements; I'd have to look. =A0Most direct interest to us is the feed
> grains and other beef/pork-related products (not necessarily the animals
> or meat but the ancillary products associated w/ production of same).
>
> As a small-grains producer we certainly don't cotton to the stranglehold
> some southern states have on certain commodities in crafting farm
> legislation, sugar being only one... :)
>
> I make no pretense there's complete consistency throughout the myriad
> legislative and regulatory rules regarding ag imports/exports :) but I
> would submit that is true in any area one would care to look at.
>
> The question was raised by OP of what is the US able to export and ag
> products is one area was the answer. =A0I simply pointed out that in
> aiding US balance of payments the current administration's delay in
> ratifying already negotiated (in bilateral talks) trade agreements isn't
> helping even though these are, in the overall scheme of things, quite
> small markets under discussion.
>
> --
Some of those markets would include lard and sugar. I would be
surprised if there was any left over for export. (That's based on what
I see waddling through the Michigan shopping malls these days.)
I keed!, I keed!!
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
> How much of this is the result of the gov'ts (city/county/state/fed)
> reacting to idiots? How much is the result of corporations being led
> by stockholders, who demand that the corp maximize their earnings?
OOH! OOH! I know! Teacher, ask ME!
;-)
In article <[email protected]>, dpb
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
> ...
>
> >> But, with that scenario in mind, what are we best at? What can or do
> >> we sell to the world? ...
> >> ... Corn and wheat? ...
>
> The ag export business is one of if not the largest positive
> contributors to the trade deficit we have yet we can't get
> congress-critters to move on several outstanding trade agreements to
> further open certain (primarily South/Central-American at this time)
> markets by eliminating or substantially reducing their currently high
> import duties... :(
You're saying the US ag sector needs OTHER countries to open their
markets?
ROTFLMAO!
Now THAT'S comedy!
In article <[email protected]>, dpb
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, dpb
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Larry Jaques wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>> But, with that scenario in mind, what are we best at? What can or do
> >>>> we sell to the world? ...
> >>>> ... Corn and wheat? ...
> >> The ag export business is one of if not the largest positive
> >> contributors to the trade deficit we have yet we can't get
> >> congress-critters to move on several outstanding trade agreements to
> >> further open certain (primarily South/Central-American at this time)
> >> markets by eliminating or substantially reducing their currently high
> >> import duties... :(
> >
> > You're saying the US ag sector needs OTHER countries to open their
> > markets?
> >
> > ROTFLMAO!
> >
> > Now THAT'S comedy!
>
> We have negotiated deals w/ several countries _they_ want authorized,
> yes. These are bilateral agreements, not US-imposed. The delays are
> not on substantial bases, only primarily that production agriculture
> gets very little attention or has any support in current administration
> as compared to other (as seen to them as more important) issues.
>
> US is also party to WTO agreements and is in continuing negotiations
> there w/ EU.
>
> S. Korea, China and some specific others have restricted beef and pork
> imports quite severely over ill-founded (as in contravening general
> worldwide science-based standards) and local politics.
>
> In the meantime, the US is importing significant other areas from places
> that don't necessarily follow our practices in regulating pesticide
> usage, labor rules and so on at very low or no tariff levels.
I work for a farm newspaper in western Canada, and to hear someone
bitching about other nations harming the US ag sector is both ironic
and just fucking hilarious.
The US regularly breaches its WTO obligations. Not to mention NAFTA.
Not to mention nuisance  lawsuits from groups like R-CALF.
So when I read someone bitching about other nations doing Bad Things
that hurt the US ag sector my response is: "As ye sow, so shall ye
reap." Start trading fairly and other nations will trade fairly with
you.
OTOH, it seems that we just have to wait a couple of Hopey-Changey
years for your economy to totally tank, and then maybe you'll be a
little less arrogant.
In article <[email protected]>, dpb
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, as a US beef producer whose export markets were destroyed by
> Canadian mad-cow introduced solely into the US from Canada, our
> viewpoint is somewhat different.
That's nonsense. The US had BSE before Canada but the USDA was
successfully hiding it. If you think about how cattle moved in BOTH
directions over the before the BSE crisis broke, you'll recognize that
to say it came from Canada is, pardon the expression, bullshit.
In article <[email protected]>, dpb
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, dpb
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, as a US beef producer whose export markets were destroyed by
> >> Canadian mad-cow introduced solely into the US from Canada, our
> >> viewpoint is somewhat different.
> >
> > That's nonsense. The US had BSE before Canada but the USDA was
> > successfully hiding it. If you think about how cattle moved in BOTH
> > directions over the before the BSE crisis broke, you'll recognize that
> > to say it came from Canada is, pardon the expression, bullshit.
>
> I don't believe there's a shred of evidence that supports that position
> other than the desire on the northern side of the border mitigate
> responsibility.
I accept that you don't believe it.
I know that our reporters heard it from USDA officials, but in
off-the-record conversations.
Let's get back to talking about woodworking...
In article <[email protected]>, dpb
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> ...
>
> > I know that our reporters heard it from USDA officials, but in
> > off-the-record conversations.
>
> What I know is US was certified BSE-free prior to the WA cow whose
> origin was BC.
That doesn't contradict anything I've said.
In article <[email protected]>, dpb
<[email protected]> wrote:
> And, what makes the previous assertion somewhat hard to comprehend is if
> it were the US "trying to sweep it under the rug" why wasn't the one
> Bossy simply destroyed, buried and forgotten instead of tested,
> confirmed and creating mass chaos?
That's a good question. I can think of several answers.
In article <[email protected]>, dpb
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, dpb
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> And, what makes the previous assertion somewhat hard to comprehend is if
> >> it were the US "trying to sweep it under the rug" why wasn't the one
> >> Bossy simply destroyed, buried and forgotten instead of tested,
> >> confirmed and creating mass chaos?
> >
> > That's a good question. I can think of several answers.
>
> So can I...none having to do w/ unsubstantiated claims of coverups and
> black helicopters.
ROFL!
Buh-bye.
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:12:43 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
> ><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How much of this is the result of the gov'ts (city/county/state/fed)
> >> reacting to idiots? How much is the result of corporations being led
> >> by stockholders, who demand that the corp maximize their earnings?
> >
> >OOH! OOH! I know! Teacher, ask ME!
> >
> >;-)
>
> Go for it, Baldy!
The correct answer is "YESH!"
In article <[email protected]>, David
Nebenzahl <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/29/2009 11:04 AM Hoosierpopi spake thus:
>
> >> On Nov 27, 1:28 pm, Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just call me Scrooge
> >
> > Scrooge? Who cares. Stupid, inappropriate, maybe.
> >
> > This is supposed to be a Woodworking List, no?
>
> List? Where do you get "list"? It's a newsgroup.
This is why I kill-file all posts from Google groups.
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:39:59 -0500, Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke said:
>
>>Greg G. wrote:
>
>>> Just call me Scrooge, 'cause I'm not spending one thin dime on
>>> anything imported - leaving cigarettes, booze and hookers.
>>> Ho, ho, ho, indeed. :)
>>
>>So whose computer are you using, since you refuse to own one.
>
>3ghz x2/p45/4gb/nv9500/dual 320gb HDD/single DVD/CDR at $320.
>Last year and the first in 8 years. I assemble my own computers, and
>the MB and most parts were manufactured in Taiwan. The CPU is Malay,
The CPU was packaged in Malaysia, it was likely made in the US (if
Intel, Germany if AMD).
>drives from Thailand and S.Korea. And if I could I would exclude
>several of the latter as well as I don't condone exploitation,
>dictatorships, slave and prison labor, or baron economics.
But you do.
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:39:59 -0500, the infamous Greg
G.<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>J. Clarke said:
>
>>Greg G. wrote:
>
>>> Just call me Scrooge, 'cause I'm not spending one thin dime on
>>> anything imported - leaving cigarettes, booze and hookers.
>>> Ho, ho, ho, indeed. :)
>>
>>So whose computer are you using, since you refuse to own one.
>
>3ghz x2/p45/4gb/nv9500/dual 320gb HDD/single DVD/CDR at $320.
>Last year and the first in 8 years. I assemble my own computers, and
>the MB and most parts were manufactured in Taiwan. The CPU is Malay,
>drives from Thailand and S.Korea. And if I could I would exclude
>several of the latter as well as I don't condone exploitation,
>dictatorships, slave and prison labor, or baron economics.
So, you're saying "I make my living off the backs of others, but I
don't take _joy_ in it...all the way to the bank.", eh?
OK. (:-\
--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:12:43 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>> How much of this is the result of the gov'ts (city/county/state/fed)
>> reacting to idiots? How much is the result of corporations being led
>> by stockholders, who demand that the corp maximize their earnings?
>
>OOH! OOH! I know! Teacher, ask ME!
>
>;-)
Go for it, Baldy!
--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.
> On Nov 27, 1:28=A0pm, Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote:
>Just call me Scrooge
Scrooge? Who cares. Stupid, inappropriate, maybe.
This is supposed to be a Woodworking List, no?
I'll bet that there is an Economics 101 list or similar. Maybe a Glenn
Beck / Fox News list where you might commune with like-minded
individuals who have the interest and time for such diatribes.
The very act of typing "OT" in your subject line should clue you in to
get out of this list and sign in to some political blog.
I read this thinking it had some relationship to the topic - maybe a
comment on a new tool you found Friday (like that little device that
turns an old 5G paint bucket into a small shop vac that HD offered).
And to the rest of you who replied to this post and, thus, drove it to
the top of the "most active" list that is sent out each day, thanks a
lot. Better you, too, should hold your water and ignore OT posts - or
at least reply to the sender and not to the group.
Talk to you wife about shopping, talk to the TV, talk to the wall, but
leave us out of it - please.
On 11/27/2009 10:28 AM Greg G. spake thus:
> Just a reminder for those who are stupid enough to stand in the cold
> at 4:00am waiting for some idiot mall or big-box store to open for
> Friday's hoped for binge of consumer excess.
> Read the labels! This is where your money is going:
>
> http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20080513-64857.html
>
> Which is what this was about:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7941425.stm
Oh, give me a fucking break.
You're upset because some Chinese vessels "harassed" a U.S. Navy ship?
Oh, that must prove just how eeeevil those dastardly Red Chinese are!
This whole thing is just so 19th century, so Gilbert and Sullivan, that
nobody but some incredibly bewhiskered gonzo military type could
possibly see it as relevant. Kind of like if the Case of the
Bruce-Partington Plans were to make tomorrow's headlines. All this musty
dusty preoccupation with naval treaties, secret codes and the like.
Besides, we (the U.S.) have nobody but ourselves to blame, since as the
article points out we have not yet ratified the UN Convention on the Law
of the Sea (as the Chinese have), so the case cannot be adjudicated there.
And who's to say that we were *not* "spying" there?
--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.
- harvested from Usenet
On 11/28/2009 6:01 AM Jay Pique spake thus:
> On Nov 28, 8:04 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As for your claim that imported products offer no employment opportunities
>> for one's neighbors, consider the largest private employer in the world:
>> Walmart.
>
> <spits coffee all over monitor> Sounds like one of those SAT
> questions...."Walmart is to Employment Opportunity as: __________ is
> to ____________ ."
>
> Maybe someone can fill in the blanks? I've got a couple ideas, but
> they aren't well enough formed yet for publication.
Walmart is to employment opportunity as San Quentin is to educational
advancement.
--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.
- harvested from Usenet
On 11/28/2009 12:39 AM Greg G. spake thus:
> David Nebenzahl said:
>
>> And who's to say that we were *not* "spying" there?
>
> I have no doubt we were, and why we were confronted. Yet I would think
> some 200 more nukes floating around the world's seas would be
> something to be concerned about.
>
> But that's OK - go fill up your Borg cart with junk that offers no
> employment opportunities to your neighbors in foreclosure and is used
> by the recipient for militaristic buildups which will result in a
> counter by our own forces. Everybody's happy! Well, the
> mil-contractors, import barons, and bankers are, anyway.
> Suckers.
Hey, don't get sore; I think you've got the symptoms pretty much nailed.
It's your analysis that's a little bit off.
Yes, we have (by whatever means and for whatever reason) ceded our once
economic dominance of the world to others, primarily the Chinese and
India. Our practice of offshoring is at least partly to blame. Part of
it may have been economically inevitable--the ironclad rule that greedy
capitalists always seek the cheapest labor, and if "they" are "willing"
to work for 1/10 of our wages, production will relocate there. (Of
course, this pretty much glosses over how "willing" they are, how
attempts to unionize are grounds for being killed, little or no
workplace safety rules, little or no basic human rights, etc., etc.)
Plus, not all that we get from them (China, at least) is junk. The
quality is increasing all the time. And why not? After all, these are
the folks who were making great technological advances while our
(European) forbears were shivering in caves.
--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.
- harvested from Usenet
On 11/29/2009 11:04 AM Hoosierpopi spake thus:
>> On Nov 27, 1:28 pm, Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Just call me Scrooge
>
> Scrooge? Who cares. Stupid, inappropriate, maybe.
>
> This is supposed to be a Woodworking List, no?
List? Where do you get "list"? It's a newsgroup.
--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.
- harvested from Usenet
On 11/29/2009 6:57 PM Bill spake thus:
> ListServes were the predecessors of newsgroups. When you think about
> how a newsgroup works, the term "list" doesn't seem totally
> unfitting... Both have trolls and can be a valuable sources of
> information. There are plenty of details on both at wikipedia.com.
Sorry, I prefer to get my information from credible, reliable and
fact-checked sources, not "encyclopedias" that any pimply-faced junior
high school "admin" can edit and oversee.
--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.
- harvested from Usenet
On 2009-11-28 10:06:35 -0500, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> said:
> Is it any wonder? The prices our goods have been driven to by the
> liberals, attorneys, and unions are 3 to 50 times that of the exact
> same item produced in China. But they do still buy a lot of our
> products. Just nothing in comparison, quantity-wise.
There may be an element of truth here, however the real damage to our
economy has been the mindset that places "maximisation of shareholder
value" above actually making the damn buggy whips.
Just like the promise of success lifting the drug dealer out of his
mean streets -- remember him in that earlier example? -- everybody
piled into the stock market, because it was going to make all of us
rich.
Didn't happen that way, did it? I'm still working, at least for the
rest of this week. Seems I've been semi-retired most of this decade...
dpb <[email protected]> writes:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>...
>
>>> But, with that scenario in mind, what are we best at? What can or do
>>> we sell to the world? ...
>>> ... Corn and wheat? ...
>
>The ag export business is one of if not the largest positive
>contributors to the trade deficit we have yet we can't get
>congress-critters to move on several outstanding trade agreements to
>further open certain (primarily South/Central-American at this time)
>markets by eliminating or substantially reducing their currently high
>import duties... :(
You mean like the US tariffs on Sugar?
scott
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:58:39 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:12:43 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
>> ><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> How much of this is the result of the gov'ts (city/county/state/fed)
>> >> reacting to idiots? How much is the result of corporations being led
>> >> by stockholders, who demand that the corp maximize their earnings?
>> >
>> >OOH! OOH! I know! Teacher, ask ME!
>> >
>> >;-)
>>
>> Go for it, Baldy!
>
>The correct answer is "YESH!"
Two points!
--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.
J. Clarke said:
>Greg G. wrote:
>> Just call me Scrooge, 'cause I'm not spending one thin dime on
>> anything imported - leaving cigarettes, booze and hookers.
>> Ho, ho, ho, indeed. :)
>
>So whose computer are you using, since you refuse to own one.
3ghz x2/p45/4gb/nv9500/dual 320gb HDD/single DVD/CDR at $320.
Last year and the first in 8 years. I assemble my own computers, and
the MB and most parts were manufactured in Taiwan. The CPU is Malay,
drives from Thailand and S.Korea. And if I could I would exclude
several of the latter as well as I don't condone exploitation,
dictatorships, slave and prison labor, or baron economics.
Greg G.
On 02 Dec 2009 06:12:31 GMT, the infamous Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> scrawled the following:
>Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:40:23 -0500, the infamous "Bill"
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>SORRY, I mean't to type I DON'T like to see the bickering.
>>
>> Remember Spock's famous quote?
>>
>> "Could you please continue your petty bickering? I find it most
>> interesting."
>>
>
>Data on Next Generation said that. Spock may have said it also, but I
>doubt it.
Oops, I think you're right. He also said
"If you prick me, do I not leak?"
STNG was my favorite of all the Treks.
--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jay Pique wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 8:04 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> As for your claim that imported products offer no employment
>>> opportunities for one's neighbors, consider the largest private
>>> employer in the world: Walmart.
>>
>> <spits coffee all over monitor> Sounds like one of those SAT
>> questions...."Walmart is to Employment Opportunity as: __________ is
>> to ____________ ."
>>
>> Maybe someone can fill in the blanks? I've got a couple ideas, but
>> they aren't well enough formed yet for publication.
>>
>
> As you know, Chicago doesn't allow Walmarts. About four years ago, Walmart
> opened a store across the street from Chicago in a neighboring city of
> Evergreen Park. The company advertised for 350-400 employees.
>
> They got 25,000 job applications.
>
> http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=19286
>
> Evidently tens of thousands of folks thing that Walmart is a great job
> opportunity.
>
Evidently, tens of thousands of folks think the drug trade is a great job
opportunity. Are you going to be as quick to jump on that bandwagon?
Ed
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:01:56 -0800 (PST), the infamous Jay Pique
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Nov 28, 8:04 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As for your claim that imported products offer no employment opportunities
>> for one's neighbors, consider the largest private employer in the world:
>> Walmart.
>
><spits coffee all over monitor> Sounds like one of those SAT
>questions...."Walmart is to Employment Opportunity as: __________ is
>to ____________ ."
>
>Maybe someone can fill in the blanks? I've got a couple ideas, but
>they aren't well enough formed yet for publication.
>
>Carry on.
Like it or not, -most- Wally World employees are quite happy. If you
don't believe me, walk up to any employee and ask "Are you happy
working here?" Let us know what you come up with. Be fair, though.
Don't start by saying "Your manager makes 10x times more money than
you. Is that OK?" Ask around town, too, so you get a good feel for
it, then let us know.
--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.
On Nov 28, 1:09=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, dpb
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, dpb
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
> >>>> ...
>
> >>>>>> But, with that scenario in mind, what are we best at? =A0What can =
or do
> >>>>>> we sell to the world? =A0...
> >>>>>> ... Corn and wheat? =A0...
> >>>> The ag export business is one of if not the largest positive
> >>>> contributors to the trade deficit we have yet we can't get
> >>>> congress-critters to move on several outstanding trade agreements to
> >>>> further open certain (primarily South/Central-American at this time)
> >>>> markets by eliminating or substantially reducing their currently hig=
h
> >>>> import duties... :(
> >>> You're saying the US ag sector needs OTHER countries to open their
> >>> markets?
>
> >>> ROTFLMAO!
>
> >>> Now THAT'S comedy!
> >> We have negotiated deals w/ several countries _they_ want authorized,
> >> yes. =A0These are bilateral agreements, not US-imposed. =A0The delays =
are
> >> not on substantial bases, only primarily that production agriculture
> >> gets very little attention or has any support in current administratio=
n
> >> as compared to other (as seen to them as more important) issues.
>
> >> US is also party to WTO agreements and is in continuing negotiations
> >> there w/ EU.
>
> >> S. Korea, China and some specific others have restricted beef and pork
> >> imports quite severely over ill-founded (as in contravening general
> >> worldwide science-based standards) and local politics.
>
> >> In the meantime, the US is importing significant other areas from plac=
es
> >> that don't necessarily follow our practices in regulating pesticide
> >> usage, labor rules and so on at very low or no tariff levels.
>
> > I work for a farm newspaper in western Canada, and to hear someone
> > bitching about other nations harming the US ag sector is both ironic
> > and just fucking hilarious.
>
> > The US regularly breaches its WTO obligations. Not to mention NAFTA.
> > Not to mention nuisance =A0lawsuits from groups like R-CALF.
>
> > So when I read someone bitching about other nations doing Bad Things
> > that hurt the US ag sector my response is: "As ye sow, so shall ye
> > reap." Start trading fairly and other nations will trade fairly with
> > you.
>
> > OTOH, it seems that we just have to wait a couple of Hopey-Changey
> > years for your economy to totally tank, and then maybe you'll be a
> > little less arrogant.
>
> Well, as a US beef producer whose export markets were destroyed by
> Canadian mad-cow introduced solely into the US from Canada, our
> viewpoint is somewhat different.
>
You know that the cattle trade was pretty busy in both directions
prior to the MadCow problem.
The difference is, that when we found that disease up here, we exposed
it, acted on it and didn't try to sweep it under the carpet.
Who is to say where it originated? If it was cattle-feed
contamination, where did the feed and sources for the feed come from?
To try to pin that on the Canadian cattle industry alone is unfair,
albeit typical.
David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
> Hey, don't get sore; I think you've got the symptoms pretty much
> nailed. It's your analysis that's a little bit off.
>
> Yes, we have (by whatever means and for whatever reason) ceded our
> once economic dominance of the world to others, primarily the Chinese
> and India. Our practice of offshoring is at least partly to blame.
> Part of it may have been economically inevitable--the ironclad rule
> that greedy capitalists always seek the cheapest labor, and if "they"
> are "willing" to work for 1/10 of our wages, production will relocate
> there. (Of course, this pretty much glosses over how "willing" they
> are, how attempts to unionize are grounds for being killed, little or
> no workplace safety rules, little or no basic human rights, etc.,
> etc.)
The United States accounts for about one-quarter of the world's GDP. That
number shows no signs of diminishing. China's GDP is growing, true, but that
of the US is growing faster. Economic activity is not, in spite of what many
liberals think, a zero-sum game.
"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> You mean like the US tariffs on Sugar?
>
> I'm not sure; as not sugar producer I don't know if it also in these
> agreements; I'd have to look. Most direct interest to us is the feed
> grains and other beef/pork-related products (not necessarily the animals
> or meat but the ancillary products associated w/ production of same).
>
> As a small-grains producer we certainly don't cotton to the stranglehold
> some southern states have on certain commodities in crafting farm
> legislation, sugar being only one... :)
Sugar tariffs are pushing the candy makes to Canada and Mexico. Seems silly
to try and protect one faction while driving thousands of jobs out of the
country.
"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Just a reminder for those who are stupid enough to stand in the cold
> at 4:00am waiting for some idiot mall or big-box store to open for
> Friday's hoped for binge of consumer excess.
> Read the labels! This is where your money is going:
>
> http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20080513-64857.html
>
> Which is what this was about:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7941425.stm
>
> There is a reason that Harbor Freight tool is $20.
> (Aside from it being marginal garbage to begin with...)
>
> Now let's go shopping! <ugh>
>
> This morning's news consisted of minute by minute updates on traffic
> patterns to all the local malls and WalMarts, constant reminders to
> hit the stores before the crap is gone, and everybody on the air wants
> a new big screen with a life span of < two years. Baaa aaa aaa aa.
>
> Perhaps it's just me, but I find this all utterly disgusting.
> Just call me Scrooge, 'cause I'm not spending one thin dime on
> anything imported - leaving cigarettes, booze and hookers.
> Ho, ho, ho, indeed. :)
>
>
> Greg G.
Been a while since you got any?
"Bill" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 11/29/2009 11:04 AM Hoosierpopi spake thus:
>>
>>>> On Nov 27, 1:28 pm, Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just call me Scrooge
>>>
>>> Scrooge? Who cares. Stupid, inappropriate, maybe.
>>>
>>> This is supposed to be a Woodworking List, no?
>>
>> List? Where do you get "list"? It's a newsgroup.
>>
>>
>
>ListServes were the predecessors of newsgroups. When you think about how a
>newsgroup works, the term "list" doesn't seem totally unfitting... Both
>have trolls and can be a valuable sources of information. There are plenty
>of details on both at wikipedia.com. --Bill
Sorry, usenet preceeded most, if not all, 'list servers' and 'bulletin board servers'.
scott
On Nov 28, 1:38=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, dpb
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Well, as a US beef producer whose export markets were destroyed by
> >> Canadian mad-cow introduced solely into the US from Canada, our
> >> viewpoint is somewhat different.
>
> > That's nonsense. The US had BSE before Canada but the USDA was
> > successfully hiding it. If you think about how cattle moved in BOTH
> > directions over the before the BSE crisis broke, you'll recognize that
> > to say it came from Canada is, pardon the expression, bullshit.
>
> I don't believe there's a shred of evidence that supports that position
> other than the desire on the northern side of the border mitigate
> responsibility.
>
Mitigating responsibility.. something the US never does?
On Nov 28, 8:04=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> As for your claim that imported products offer no employment opportunitie=
s
> for one's neighbors, consider the largest private employer in the world:
> Walmart.
<spits coffee all over monitor> Sounds like one of those SAT
questions...."Walmart is to Employment Opportunity as: __________ is
to ____________ ."
Maybe someone can fill in the blanks? I've got a couple ideas, but
they aren't well enough formed yet for publication.
Carry on.
JP
David Nebenzahl said:
>On 11/27/2009 10:28 AM Greg G. spake thus:
>
>> Read the labels! This is where your money is going:
>
>You're upset because some Chinese vessels "harassed" a U.S. Navy ship?
>Oh, that must prove just how eeeevil those dastardly Red Chinese are!
Ah, Well - it worked for McCarthy. Not "upset" over that incident,
but of our ignorance in general. Amazing how we've gone from massive
military buildups against the "evil commies" of the Soviet Union to
handing over our entire financial integrity and manufacturing base to
the "evil commies" of China. But seriously, do you really think they
intend to leave Taiwan alone once their toy ships and bases are
finished? Do you think that the DoD doesn't consider the massive
buildup of military prowess to be a concern? The point is, why are we
voluntarily doing this to our financial and security well being. It's
a bad thing, and certainly not worth a box of half-priced crap nails
that the heads pop off of, or a buggy of crappy tainted plastic toys.
>This whole thing is just so 19th century, so Gilbert and Sullivan, that
>nobody but some incredibly bewhiskered gonzo military type could
>possibly see it as relevant. Kind of like if the Case of the
>Bruce-Partington Plans were to make tomorrow's headlines. All this musty
>dusty preoccupation with naval treaties, secret codes and the like.
Everyone break out the flowers and sing Kumbaya. World peace is here!
We vilify Iran and N. Korea, and even Iraq for far less ostentatious
displays of military and nationalist focus. Are all those western
dollars (and debt) injected into their economy softening their
official rhetoric? Not even. And this has little to do with the
citizens of China, they are mostly victims as well.
So, let me see if I understand the public's position on this.
It's Dems/Repubs/God's fault for a declining economy and unemployment,
but we ignore the root source of the problem which is massive
outsourcing to third world countries while maintaining a persistant
6-1 negative trade balance. Hmmm... Interesting.
>Besides, we (the U.S.) have nobody but ourselves to blame, since as the
>article points out we have not yet ratified the UN Convention on the Law
>of the Sea (as the Chinese have), so the case cannot be adjudicated there.
I could care less about adjudication of the incident. Only pointing
out that they are investing huge amounts of money into military
buildup, and the US is trying to collect additional intelligence.
>And who's to say that we were *not* "spying" there?
I have no doubt we were, and why we were confronted. Yet I would think
some 200 more nukes floating around the world's seas would be
something to be concerned about.
But that's OK - go fill up your Borg cart with junk that offers no
employment opportunities to your neighbors in foreclosure and is used
by the recipient for militaristic buildups which will result in a
counter by our own forces. Everybody's happy! Well, the
mil-contractors, import barons, and bankers are, anyway.
Suckers.
Greg G.
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> said:
>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:28:55 -0500, the infamous Greg
>G.<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>
>>Just a reminder for those who are stupid enough to stand in the cold
>>at 4:00am waiting for some idiot mall or big-box store to open for
>>Friday's hoped for binge of consumer excess.
>>Read the labels! This is where your money is going:
>>
>>Now let's go shopping! <ugh>
>
>WTF does either of those articles have to do with shopping?
It was a suggestion that you avoid imported crap while doing so - use
your imagination. Sorry to burst your happy-go-shopping mindset. :)
Yet good luck finding anything that isn't imported crap.
Seriously, 85% of the content of the average shopping cart comes from
China, another 10% from other assorted Asian dictatorships. Those $60
Nikes you're so fond of are produced by teenagers in a sweat shop for
a cost of $4. And the underwear, socks, tools, TVs, lamps, clothes,
throw rugs, iPods, phones, computers, batteries... If you are not of
the investor class you are dead meat and by your own hands.
>>Just call me Scrooge, 'cause I'm not spending one thin dime on
>>anything imported - leaving cigarettes, booze and hookers.
>>Ho, ho, ho, indeed. :)
>
>I bought batteries and pillows this morning. BF no mo!
I bought booze, cigarettes, a chili-cheese dog, and twins. :)
And put a half dozen US citizens to work.
Greg G.
"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 11/29/2009 11:04 AM Hoosierpopi spake thus:
>
>>> On Nov 27, 1:28 pm, Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just call me Scrooge
>>
>> Scrooge? Who cares. Stupid, inappropriate, maybe.
>>
>> This is supposed to be a Woodworking List, no?
>
> List? Where do you get "list"? It's a newsgroup.
>
>
That was my thought exactly.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Steve wrote:
> On 2009-11-28 10:06:35 -0500, Larry Jaques
> <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> said:
>
>> Is it any wonder? The prices our goods have been driven to by the
>> liberals, attorneys, and unions are 3 to 50 times that of the exact
>> same item produced in China. But they do still buy a lot of our
>> products. Just nothing in comparison, quantity-wise.
>
> There may be an element of truth here, however the real damage to our
> economy has been the mindset that places "maximisation of shareholder
> value" above actually making the damn buggy whips.
DAGS ... for what I've been saying about the MBA program for years!!
This mindset, started as a secret project during WWII to maximize
"management" during the war effort, has been perverted to epitomize
corporate greed.
As Adam Smith indicated, a capitalistic society MUST have a strong moral
component.
Add in law schools, where the distinction between morality and legality
is purposely blurred, then make the product of same "legislators" ...
... and here we are.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>> If I've got $6.00, I can buy a U.S. made hammer. Or, I can buy a
>> Chinese-made hammer for $3.00 and have money left over for nails
>> (also made in China)!
>>
>
> Hell - you could buy the $6 US made hammer, and whack your neighbor
> in the head with it, and steal his nails. Might as well grab his
> cigarettes, his booze and his wife while you're at it... (unless
> she's ugly, then refer to the first part of this plan).
Excellent idea! Especially since he does not have a five-dollar gun made in
China because the U.S. prohibits importation of "Saturday Nigh Specials."
Regarding the neighbor's wife and what to do if she's ugly, my grandpa
imparted this bit of wisdom to me when I was about five: "Sonny, never cull
cunt!"
Time has proven him wise... for from free Greek to free Greek, he word was
spread that bold Leonidas and his three hundred, so far from home, laid down
their lives. Not just for Sparta, but for all Greece and the promise this
country holds.
No, wait...
Greg G. wrote:
> David Nebenzahl said:
>
>> On 11/27/2009 10:28 AM Greg G. spake thus:
>>
>>> Read the labels! This is where your money is going:
>>
>> You're upset because some Chinese vessels "harassed" a U.S. Navy
>> ship? Oh, that must prove just how eeeevil those dastardly Red
>> Chinese are!
>
> Ah, Well - it worked for McCarthy. Not "upset" over that incident,
> but of our ignorance in general. Amazing how we've gone from massive
> military buildups against the "evil commies" of the Soviet Union to
> handing over our entire financial integrity and manufacturing base to
> the "evil commies" of China. But seriously, do you really think they
> intend to leave Taiwan alone once their toy ships and bases are
> finished? Do you think that the DoD doesn't consider the massive
> buildup of military prowess to be a concern? The point is, why are we
> voluntarily doing this to our financial and security well being. It's
> a bad thing, and certainly not worth a box of half-priced crap nails
> that the heads pop off of, or a buggy of crappy tainted plastic toys.
>
Communist China poses no threat to Taiwan.
The most cowardly thing in the world is money. Any overt military action by
China and all the world's trade with China disappears and the country
collapses into chaos.
>
> But that's OK - go fill up your Borg cart with junk that offers no
> employment opportunities to your neighbors in foreclosure and is used
> by the recipient for militaristic buildups which will result in a
> counter by our own forces. Everybody's happy! Well, the
> mil-contractors, import barons, and bankers are, anyway.
> Suckers.
>
Moving money around in a closed economic system does not create wealth - it
merely redistributes it. In the fullness of time, a small group of clever
individuals own most of the wealth while the general population is
impovorished, OR, with sufficient governmental intervention, everybody is
roughly equal. The downside of the latter is that anything the government
does destroys wealth, never creates any, so the end result is that everybody
is destitute.
As for your claim that imported products offer no employment opportunities
for one's neighbors, consider the largest private employer in the world:
Walmart.
Greg G. wrote:
> Just a reminder for those who are stupid enough to stand in the cold
> at 4:00am waiting for some idiot mall or big-box store to open for
> Friday's hoped for binge of consumer excess.
> Read the labels! This is where your money is going:
>
> http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20080513-64857.html
>
> Which is what this was about:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7941425.stm
>
> There is a reason that Harbor Freight tool is $20.
> (Aside from it being marginal garbage to begin with...)
>
> Now let's go shopping! <ugh>
>
> This morning's news consisted of minute by minute updates on traffic
> patterns to all the local malls and WalMarts, constant reminders to
> hit the stores before the crap is gone, and everybody on the air wants
> a new big screen with a life span of < two years. Baaa aaa aaa aa.
>
> Perhaps it's just me, but I find this all utterly disgusting.
> Just call me Scrooge, 'cause I'm not spending one thin dime on
> anything imported - leaving cigarettes, booze and hookers.
> Ho, ho, ho, indeed. :)
So whose computer are you using, since you refuse to own one.
Greg G. wrote:
> J. Clarke said:
>
>> Greg G. wrote:
>
>>> Just call me Scrooge, 'cause I'm not spending one thin dime on
>>> anything imported - leaving cigarettes, booze and hookers.
>>> Ho, ho, ho, indeed. :)
>>
>> So whose computer are you using, since you refuse to own one.
>
> 3ghz x2/p45/4gb/nv9500/dual 320gb HDD/single DVD/CDR at $320.
> Last year and the first in 8 years. I assemble my own computers, and
> the MB and most parts were manufactured in Taiwan. The CPU is Malay,
> drives from Thailand and S.Korea. And if I could I would exclude
> several of the latter as well as I don't condone exploitation,
> dictatorships, slave and prison labor, or baron economics.
In other words you lied about not spending one thin dime on anything
imported.
Larry Jaques wrote:
...
>> But, with that scenario in mind, what are we best at? What can or do
>> we sell to the world? ...
>> ... Corn and wheat? ...
The ag export business is one of if not the largest positive
contributors to the trade deficit we have yet we can't get
congress-critters to move on several outstanding trade agreements to
further open certain (primarily South/Central-American at this time)
markets by eliminating or substantially reducing their currently high
import duties... :(
--
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, dpb
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>>> But, with that scenario in mind, what are we best at? What can or do
>>>> we sell to the world? ...
>>>> ... Corn and wheat? ...
>> The ag export business is one of if not the largest positive
>> contributors to the trade deficit we have yet we can't get
>> congress-critters to move on several outstanding trade agreements to
>> further open certain (primarily South/Central-American at this time)
>> markets by eliminating or substantially reducing their currently high
>> import duties... :(
>
> You're saying the US ag sector needs OTHER countries to open their
> markets?
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> Now THAT'S comedy!
We have negotiated deals w/ several countries _they_ want authorized,
yes. These are bilateral agreements, not US-imposed. The delays are
not on substantial bases, only primarily that production agriculture
gets very little attention or has any support in current administration
as compared to other (as seen to them as more important) issues.
US is also party to WTO agreements and is in continuing negotiations
there w/ EU.
S. Korea, China and some specific others have restricted beef and pork
imports quite severely over ill-founded (as in contravening general
worldwide science-based standards) and local politics.
In the meantime, the US is importing significant other areas from places
that don't necessarily follow our practices in regulating pesticide
usage, labor rules and so on at very low or no tariff levels.
--
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, dpb
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, dpb
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> But, with that scenario in mind, what are we best at? What can or do
>>>>>> we sell to the world? ...
>>>>>> ... Corn and wheat? ...
>>>> The ag export business is one of if not the largest positive
>>>> contributors to the trade deficit we have yet we can't get
>>>> congress-critters to move on several outstanding trade agreements to
>>>> further open certain (primarily South/Central-American at this time)
>>>> markets by eliminating or substantially reducing their currently high
>>>> import duties... :(
>>> You're saying the US ag sector needs OTHER countries to open their
>>> markets?
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO!
>>>
>>> Now THAT'S comedy!
>> We have negotiated deals w/ several countries _they_ want authorized,
>> yes. These are bilateral agreements, not US-imposed. The delays are
>> not on substantial bases, only primarily that production agriculture
>> gets very little attention or has any support in current administration
>> as compared to other (as seen to them as more important) issues.
>>
>> US is also party to WTO agreements and is in continuing negotiations
>> there w/ EU.
>>
>> S. Korea, China and some specific others have restricted beef and pork
>> imports quite severely over ill-founded (as in contravening general
>> worldwide science-based standards) and local politics.
>>
>> In the meantime, the US is importing significant other areas from places
>> that don't necessarily follow our practices in regulating pesticide
>> usage, labor rules and so on at very low or no tariff levels.
>
> I work for a farm newspaper in western Canada, and to hear someone
> bitching about other nations harming the US ag sector is both ironic
> and just fucking hilarious.
>
> The US regularly breaches its WTO obligations. Not to mention NAFTA.
> Not to mention nuisance lawsuits from groups like R-CALF.
>
> So when I read someone bitching about other nations doing Bad Things
> that hurt the US ag sector my response is: "As ye sow, so shall ye
> reap." Start trading fairly and other nations will trade fairly with
> you.
>
> OTOH, it seems that we just have to wait a couple of Hopey-Changey
> years for your economy to totally tank, and then maybe you'll be a
> little less arrogant.
Well, as a US beef producer whose export markets were destroyed by
Canadian mad-cow introduced solely into the US from Canada, our
viewpoint is somewhat different.
We have disagreements w/ WTO; we don't necessarily see that we're in
violation and we do continue to talk.
I don't fully agree w/ RCALF; I do understand individuals' discontent
and fully support their right to seek redress as they see fit.
--
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, dpb
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Well, as a US beef producer whose export markets were destroyed by
>> Canadian mad-cow introduced solely into the US from Canada, our
>> viewpoint is somewhat different.
>
> That's nonsense. The US had BSE before Canada but the USDA was
> successfully hiding it. If you think about how cattle moved in BOTH
> directions over the before the BSE crisis broke, you'll recognize that
> to say it came from Canada is, pardon the expression, bullshit.
I don't believe there's a shred of evidence that supports that position
other than the desire on the northern side of the border mitigate
responsibility.
--
Robatoy wrote:
...
> You know that the cattle trade was pretty busy in both directions
> prior to the MadCow problem.
> The difference is, that when we found that disease up here, we exposed
> it, acted on it and didn't try to sweep it under the carpet.
> Who is to say where it originated? If it was cattle-feed
> contamination, where did the feed and sources for the feed come from?
> To try to pin that on the Canadian cattle industry alone is unfair,
> albeit typical.
Well, as noted just upthread, the US was certified BSE-free prior to the
old cow in WA that showed up from BC.
US also had banned feed containing material suspected of being the
problem in transmission many years before Canada did.
Those are, as far as I can tell, both true statements.
--
dpb wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> ...
>> You know that the cattle trade was pretty busy in both directions
>> prior to the MadCow problem.
>> The difference is, that when we found that disease up here, we exposed
>> it, acted on it and didn't try to sweep it under the carpet.
>> Who is to say where it originated? If it was cattle-feed
>> contamination, where did the feed and sources for the feed come from?
>> To try to pin that on the Canadian cattle industry alone is unfair,
>> albeit typical.
>
> Well, as noted just upthread, the US was certified BSE-free prior to the
> old cow in WA that showed up from BC.
>
> US also had banned feed containing material suspected of being the
> problem in transmission many years before Canada did.
>
> Those are, as far as I can tell, both true statements.
And, what makes the previous assertion somewhat hard to comprehend is if
it were the US "trying to sweep it under the rug" why wasn't the one
Bossy simply destroyed, buried and forgotten instead of tested,
confirmed and creating mass chaos?
AFAICT, the allegation just doesn't compute, sorry....
--
HeyBub wrote:
> Jay Pique wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 8:04 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> As for your claim that imported products offer no employment
>>> opportunities for one's neighbors, consider the largest private
>>> employer in the world: Walmart.
>>
>> <spits coffee all over monitor> Sounds like one of those SAT
>> questions...."Walmart is to Employment Opportunity as: __________ is
>> to ____________ ."
>>
>> Maybe someone can fill in the blanks? I've got a couple ideas, but
>> they aren't well enough formed yet for publication.
>>
>
> As you know, Chicago doesn't allow Walmarts. About four years ago,
> Walmart opened a store across the street from Chicago in a
> neighboring city of Evergreen Park. The company advertised for
> 350-400 employees.
>
> They got 25,000 job applications.
>
> http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=19286
>
> Evidently tens of thousands of folks thing that Walmart is a great job
> opportunity.
Beats the Hell out of starvation I guess.
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, dpb
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And, what makes the previous assertion somewhat hard to comprehend is if
>> it were the US "trying to sweep it under the rug" why wasn't the one
>> Bossy simply destroyed, buried and forgotten instead of tested,
>> confirmed and creating mass chaos?
>
> That's a good question. I can think of several answers.
So can I...none having to do w/ unsubstantiated claims of coverups and
black helicopters.
--
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, dpb
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> I know that our reporters heard it from USDA officials, but in
>>> off-the-record conversations.
>> What I know is US was certified BSE-free prior to the WA cow whose
>> origin was BC.
>
> That doesn't contradict anything I've said.
Nor does anything you've said have any factual corroborating evidence
behind it you've pointed to other than hearsay.
Given the massive amount of testing done after the event and the lack of
positive findings, there's no evidence to support that assertion of
there being or had been a problem in US herds outside the above connections.
--
Robatoy wrote:
...
> Mitigating responsibility.. something the US never does?
I think you misunderstand...of _course_ and I expect them to; that's
their job and they're failing miserably if they don't immediately react
to do same.
Nothing the Canadians did during and following the initial discovery was
not in what they saw as their best interests--as, for the most, part I
think the US reaction was handled about as well as it could have been
for damage control by USDA and various other organizations. It's just
that some of those actions/statements made weren't necessarily conducive
in aiding the US in mitigating the magnitude of the ensuing economic
impact. And, of course, that's not particularly surprising; through it
all they were continuing to figure out what they could/should do to
preserve their own markets and potentially grow them as a side benefit.
IOW, "let no crisis go to waste".
Each party has to look out primarily for the interests of their
constituents while trying to find mutually-beneficial positions. That's
what makes trade negotiations such contentious and difficult things and
why there's disagreement on "who's right/who's wrong" depending on the
perceived needs and objectives of each side.
OTOH, factual information that can be verified is something else and the
other participant in this conversation doesn't seem to have any other
than "off-the-record" supposed true confessions of some official.
Given the state of keeping secrets in DC, if such a statement had been
made to a news source in Canada by any one w/ actual factual basis for
it, it goes beyond credible that the same or another like-minded insider
would be able to refrain from making the same or similar
revelation/accusation to the Washington Post or one of the other
ag-bashing media outlets in the States and all h--- would've broken over it.
--
"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 11/29/2009 11:04 AM Hoosierpopi spake thus:
>
>>> On Nov 27, 1:28 pm, Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just call me Scrooge
>>
>> Scrooge? Who cares. Stupid, inappropriate, maybe.
>>
>> This is supposed to be a Woodworking List, no?
>
> List? Where do you get "list"? It's a newsgroup.
>
>
ListServes were the predecessors of newsgroups. When you think about how a
newsgroup works, the term "list" doesn't seem totally unfitting... Both
have trolls and can be a valuable sources of information. There are plenty
of details on both at wikipedia.com. --Bill
> --
> I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
> Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.
>
> - harvested from Usenet
Bill wrote:
> "David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 11/29/2009 11:04 AM Hoosierpopi spake thus:
>>
>>>> On Nov 27, 1:28 pm, Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just call me Scrooge
>>>
>>> Scrooge? Who cares. Stupid, inappropriate, maybe.
>>>
>>> This is supposed to be a Woodworking List, no?
>>
>> List? Where do you get "list"? It's a newsgroup.
>>
>>
>
> ListServes were the predecessors of newsgroups. When you think about
> how a newsgroup works, the term "list" doesn't seem totally
> unfitting... Both have trolls and can be a valuable sources of
> information. There are plenty of details on both at wikipedia.com.
And if you believe those "plenty of details" then USENET predates Listserv
by nearly two decades.
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> dpb <[email protected]> writes:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>>> But, with that scenario in mind, what are we best at? What can or do
>>>> we sell to the world? ...
>>>> ... Corn and wheat? ...
>> The ag export business is one of if not the largest positive
>> contributors to the trade deficit we have yet we can't get
>> congress-critters to move on several outstanding trade agreements to
>> further open certain (primarily South/Central-American at this time)
>> markets by eliminating or substantially reducing their currently high
>> import duties... :(
>
> You mean like the US tariffs on Sugar?
I'm not sure; as not sugar producer I don't know if it also in these
agreements; I'd have to look. Most direct interest to us is the feed
grains and other beef/pork-related products (not necessarily the animals
or meat but the ancillary products associated w/ production of same).
As a small-grains producer we certainly don't cotton to the stranglehold
some southern states have on certain commodities in crafting farm
legislation, sugar being only one... :)
I make no pretense there's complete consistency throughout the myriad
legislative and regulatory rules regarding ag imports/exports :) but I
would submit that is true in any area one would care to look at.
The question was raised by OP of what is the US able to export and ag
products is one area was the answer. I simply pointed out that in
aiding US balance of payments the current administration's delay in
ratifying already negotiated (in bilateral talks) trade agreements isn't
helping even though these are, in the overall scheme of things, quite
small markets under discussion.
--
"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bill" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On 11/29/2009 11:04 AM Hoosierpopi spake thus:
>>>
>>>>> On Nov 27, 1:28 pm, Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just call me Scrooge
>>>>
>>>> Scrooge? Who cares. Stupid, inappropriate, maybe.
>>>>
>>>> This is supposed to be a Woodworking List, no?
>>>
>>> List? Where do you get "list"? It's a newsgroup.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>ListServes were the predecessors of newsgroups. When you think about how a
>>newsgroup works, the term "list" doesn't seem totally unfitting... Both
>>have trolls and can be a valuable sources of information. There are
>>plenty
>>of details on both at wikipedia.com. --Bill
>
> Sorry, usenet preceeded most, if not all, 'list servers' and 'bulletin
> board servers'.
>
> scott
I don't mind standing corrected. I just just like to see the bickering.
Bill
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...
> Sugar tariffs are pushing the candy makes to Canada and Mexico. Seems silly
> to try and protect one faction while driving thousands of jobs out of the
> country.
No argument from a wheat/milo grower, there...
If growin' cane in LA, perhaps my viewpoint might be different??? :)
Sugar, peanuts, tobacco are on the list of commodities w/ very powerful
legislators and have been for over 50 years now. Not likely to change
anytime soon, particularly when the current administration is so
indifferent to agriculture in general and downright hostile it appears
to production ag interests if what we hear is what is really intended.
--
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 11/29/2009 11:04 AM Hoosierpopi spake thus:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 27, 1:28 pm, Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just call me Scrooge
>>>>>
>>>>> Scrooge? Who cares. Stupid, inappropriate, maybe.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is supposed to be a Woodworking List, no?
>>>>
>>>> List? Where do you get "list"? It's a newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>ListServes were the predecessors of newsgroups. When you think about how
>>>a
>>>newsgroup works, the term "list" doesn't seem totally unfitting... Both
>>>have trolls and can be a valuable sources of information. There are
>>>plenty
>>>of details on both at wikipedia.com. --Bill
>>
>> Sorry, usenet preceeded most, if not all, 'list servers' and 'bulletin
>> board servers'.
>>
>> scott
>
>
> I don't mind standing corrected. I just just like to see the bickering.
>
> Bill
SORRY, I mean't to type I DON'T like to see the bickering.
>
dpb wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> ...
>
>> Sugar tariffs are pushing the candy makes to Canada and Mexico. Seems
>> silly to try and protect one faction while driving thousands of jobs
>> out of the country.
>
> No argument from a wheat/milo grower, there...
>
> If growin' cane in LA, perhaps my viewpoint might be different??? :)
>
> Sugar, peanuts, tobacco are on the list of commodities w/ very powerful
> legislators and have been for over 50 years now. Not likely to change
> anytime soon, particularly when the current administration is so
> indifferent to agriculture in general and downright hostile it appears
> to production ag interests if what we hear is what is really intended.
And while there's much to dislike, there is _no_ congress-critter
seriously interested in the ag sector in the major farm states that will
even consider reopening the '08 ag bill given what the current Congress
would likely do...it'll be battle enough to fight off the worst of the
effects of the additional mandates/initiatives already on the way. :(
If'en the Post thinks food prices are too high now, let 'em wait 'til
the effects of C tax and the like hit fertilizer and fuel prices just
for starters...
--
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:39:32 -0500, the infamous Greg
G.<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> said:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:28:55 -0500, the infamous Greg
>>G.<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>
>>>Just a reminder for those who are stupid enough to stand in the cold
>>>at 4:00am waiting for some idiot mall or big-box store to open for
>>>Friday's hoped for binge of consumer excess.
>>>Read the labels! This is where your money is going:
>>>
>>>Now let's go shopping! <ugh>
>>
>>WTF does either of those articles have to do with shopping?
>
>It was a suggestion that you avoid imported crap while doing so - use
>your imagination. Sorry to burst your happy-go-shopping mindset. :)
>Yet good luck finding anything that isn't imported crap.
I've bought plenty of American-made stuff at the evil Wally World.
(hardware, paint, fabrics, food, etc.) And there is no way anyone can
buy entirely US-made. Pandora's Box has been opened and Free Trade is
here to stay, so why fight it? <shrug>
>Seriously, 85% of the content of the average shopping cart comes from
>China, another 10% from other assorted Asian dictatorships.
Where'd you get your stats? Cites, please. The Duracells I got were
made in the USA. The Serta pillow shells were made in China, but the
fiberfill was US made and finish work was done in the USA, probably by
illegal _immigrants_ in a _sweatshop_ in Commerce, CA. Are you happy
now, Greg? ;)
>Those $60 Nikes you're so fond of are produced by teenagers in a sweat shop for
>a cost of $4. And the underwear, socks, tools, TVs, lamps, clothes,
>throw rugs, iPods, phones, computers, batteries... If you are not of
>the investor class you are dead meat and by your own hands.
OK, all those people in the sweat shops are happy to have
above-average wages, while some are just happy to be working.
Underwear and socks are all made on machines, not by hand.
I wear $30 Reeboks, btw.
>>>Just call me Scrooge, 'cause I'm not spending one thin dime on
>>>anything imported - leaving cigarettes, booze and hookers.
>>>Ho, ho, ho, indeed. :)
>>
>>I bought batteries and pillows this morning. BF no mo!
>
>I bought booze, cigarettes, a chili-cheese dog, and twins. :)
Ooh, got pics of the twins? Teens or older women?
>And put a half dozen US citizens to work.
Are you certain about that? Let's see, booze made in TN by
hillbillies (then packed/trucked by illegals), cigs machine-made
after being harvested by illegal aliens, chili made by illegal aliens
in US sweat-kitchen, dogs made with horse/pig/goat/cow/chicken
castoffs--by illegals and inbred Arkansans (like Clintoon), buns made
by 'Murricans. OK, I'll give you one of those. You hadn't thought
about your purchases in much depth, had you?
So, how much better off is our country after adding in your fine
shopping habits yesterday, sir?
Damned Yuppies.
--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:16:34 -0600, the infamous dpb <[email protected]>
scrawled the following:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>...
>
>>> But, with that scenario in mind, what are we best at? What can or do
>>> we sell to the world? ...
>>> ... Corn and wheat? ...
>
>The ag export business is one of if not the largest positive
>contributors to the trade deficit we have yet we can't get
>congress-critters to move on several outstanding trade agreements to
>further open certain (primarily South/Central-American at this time)
>markets by eliminating or substantially reducing their currently high
>import duties... :(
Oops! You attributed text to me which wasn't mine.
--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.
Ed Edelenbos wrote:
>
> Evidently, tens of thousands of folks think the drug trade is a great
> job opportunity. Are you going to be as quick to jump on that
> bandwagon?
No they don't. According to "Freakonomics," most drug dealers live with
their mothers because they can't afford a place of their own.
The authors of the book theorize that, for drug dealers, it's the possible,
though small, probability of a HUGE payoff if they rise high enough in the
ranks (just like many of their contemporaries think the might have a shot at
the NBA), that entices many into the drug trade.
Personally I think it's the hours that makes the job attractive to so many.
That, and standing in the community.
Greg G. wrote:
>
> Perhaps it's just me, but I find this all utterly disgusting.
> Just call me Scrooge, 'cause I'm not spending one thin dime on
> anything imported - leaving cigarettes, booze and hookers.
> Ho, ho, ho, indeed. :)
>
>
Sigh. When each nation does what it does best, and freely trades with other
nations, all the people benefit. Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations"
settled all this hash in the 18th Century.
If I've got $6.00, I can buy a U.S. made hammer. Or, I can buy a
Chinese-made hammer for $3.00 and have money left over for nails (also made
in China)!
The latter condition has to be better than the former.
Jay Pique wrote:
> On Nov 28, 8:04 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As for your claim that imported products offer no employment
>> opportunities for one's neighbors, consider the largest private
>> employer in the world: Walmart.
>
> <spits coffee all over monitor> Sounds like one of those SAT
> questions...."Walmart is to Employment Opportunity as: __________ is
> to ____________ ."
>
> Maybe someone can fill in the blanks? I've got a couple ideas, but
> they aren't well enough formed yet for publication.
>
As you know, Chicago doesn't allow Walmarts. About four years ago, Walmart
opened a store across the street from Chicago in a neighboring city of
Evergreen Park. The company advertised for 350-400 employees.
They got 25,000 job applications.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=19286
Evidently tens of thousands of folks thing that Walmart is a great job
opportunity.
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:40:55 -0500, the infamous Greg
G.<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>HeyBub said:
>
>>Greg G. wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps it's just me, but I find this all utterly disgusting.
>>> Just call me Scrooge, 'cause I'm not spending one thin dime on
>>> anything imported - leaving cigarettes, booze and hookers.
>>> Ho, ho, ho, indeed. :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Sigh. When each nation does what it does best, and freely trades with other
>>nations, all the people benefit. Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations"
>>settled all this hash in the 18th Century.
>
>A simple minded treatise from the 18th century is hardly convincing of
>anything. We're not talking Swiss chocolates, BMWs and Cannolis here.
>This is not free commerce between two similarly developed countries.
>
>In 1985 we sold China $3,855.7M and imported $3,861.7M. A -6M deficit.
>Not so bad...
>
>In 2008 our trade deficit with China was -268,039.8 Million.
>Exporting $69,732.8M and importing $337,772.6M.
>Dude, they're not buying whatever it is we're selling...
Is it any wonder? The prices our goods have been driven to by the
liberals, attorneys, and unions are 3 to 50 times that of the exact
same item produced in China. But they do still buy a lot of our
products. Just nothing in comparison, quantity-wise.
The public is being squeezed by increased prices, resulting in their
screaming for lower prices. Businesses find that they could lower
prices (and increase shares) by several methods. They respond by
changing sources (like offshoring, import only) and building factories
overseas. Result: More people out of work, screaming for lower
prices.
How much of this is the result of the gov'ts (city/county/state/fed)
reacting to idiots? How much is the result of corporations being led
by stockholders, who demand that the corp maximize their earnings?
It's a complex problem we won't work out here.
>But, with that scenario in mind, what are we best at? What can or do
>we sell to the world? Crooked bankers, bad debt, and war machinery?
>Con men? Corn and wheat? Cigarettes? Oh, happy day.
If you dislike the USA so much, Greg, you _are_ free to move, right?
Or we could get back to woodworking, which is already in progress...
--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:28:55 -0500, the infamous Greg
G.<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>Just a reminder for those who are stupid enough to stand in the cold
>at 4:00am waiting for some idiot mall or big-box store to open for
>Friday's hoped for binge of consumer excess.
>Read the labels! This is where your money is going:
>
>http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20080513-64857.html
>
>Which is what this was about:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7941425.stm
>
>There is a reason that Harbor Freight tool is $20.
>(Aside from it being marginal garbage to begin with...)
>
>Now let's go shopping! <ugh>
WTF does either of those articles have to do with shopping?
>This morning's news consisted of minute by minute updates on traffic
>patterns to all the local malls and WalMarts, constant reminders to
>hit the stores before the crap is gone, and everybody on the air wants
>a new big screen with a life span of < two years. Baaa aaa aaa aa.
>
>Perhaps it's just me, but I find this all utterly disgusting.
>Just call me Scrooge, 'cause I'm not spending one thin dime on
>anything imported - leaving cigarettes, booze and hookers.
>Ho, ho, ho, indeed. :)
I bought batteries and pillows this morning. BF no mo!
--
Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There's a consensus that it's going to change, so they've
decided to keep us in the dark.
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:59:07 -0800, David Nebenzahl
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 11/28/2009 6:01 AM Jay Pique spake thus:
>
>> On Nov 28, 8:04 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> As for your claim that imported products offer no employment opportunities
>>> for one's neighbors, consider the largest private employer in the world:
>>> Walmart.
>>
>> <spits coffee all over monitor> Sounds like one of those SAT
>> questions...."Walmart is to Employment Opportunity as: __________ is
>> to ____________ ."
>>
>> Maybe someone can fill in the blanks? I've got a couple ideas, but
>> they aren't well enough formed yet for publication.
>
>Walmart is to employment opportunity as San Quentin is to educational
>advancement.
With an attitude like that it's no wonder we have generations of
freeloaders.
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:40:23 -0500, the infamous "Bill"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>SORRY, I mean't to type I DON'T like to see the bickering.
Remember Spock's famous quote?
"Could you please continue your petty bickering? I find it most
interesting."
--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.