|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Norm-
If you are referring to classical liberalism ala Von Mises; I wholeheartedly
agree. I also want
to stand up and shout in agreement for your great comments; along with those
of Ira and Earl. Now; if we could just get the dope smoking Libertarians to
recognize the basis and substance for the rule of law.<g> I've gotta agree
though; I have been profoundly disappointed by Bush's
domestic policy along with some of the people he has chosen to surround
himself with.
chas
----- Original Message -----
From: Norman Winski <nwinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
> Jim J,
>
> Speaking of free markets, did you happen to catch Milton Friedman on
Louis
> Ruykeyser? He told how the Bush administration likes to talk free markets
> but does the opposite. How about those steel and ag subsidies and tariffs
> being implemented by the Bush administration? So much for conservative
vs.
> liberal.
> I propose we go back to the 19th century definition of liberal which means
> freedom ala Von Meis and the Austrian school of Economics. I am tired of
> socialist wolves disguised as free market sheep. If you look at the
current
> crop in that light, there are no liberals, only conservative socialists
> fighting to make the govt. bigger and rob your rights.
> Bring on the Libertarians.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Norman
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Johnson" <jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "BobsKC" <bobskc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:53 PM
> Subject: Re[2]: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
>
>
> > Hello BobsKC,
> >
> > you can't hold teachers accountable--they're unionized AND they have
> > tenure. what's that all about?
> >
> > about money--PAC money mainly. the largest contributors to Democrats
> > are unions, teachers associations and trial lawyers.
> >
> > the liberal philosophy continues to eat away at our way of life. even
> > last night on the WSJ editorial board roundtable--when asked about
> > Welsh's retirements perks, not one of those presumably free market
> > conservative writers observed that what he got was given to him
> > freely. Even they seemed to be tacitly buying into the implication
> > that somebody (government I assume) should get involved in this. the
> > title of van Hayek's book is chilling--The Road to Serfdom.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jim Johnson mailto:jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > --
> > Saturday, September 21, 2002, 10:29:59 PM, you wrote:
> >
> > B> Unions. I watched the UAW refuse to give back a dime to Cat when
> things
> > B> got tough in the early 80's even in the face of warnings they would
> move
> > B> their Iowa plants. Well, they moved them. To France! My company
> provided
> > B> two way radio and closed circuit tv services to those plants and it
was
> a
> > B> tough loss for us.
> >
> > B> There was a time for labor unions. That time was 80 years ago. Most
> of
> > B> the money they pull in goes to organized crime and they have caused
> > B> manufacturing to depart wholesale. Besides, I am suspicious of
anyone
> who
> > B> wants to work at a job where they tell you how much you can make.
> >
> > B> So, greed has driven out the manufacturing jobs. Our education
system
> has
> > B> lowered the bar for the few until the majority are getting a second
> rate
> > B> education and can not compete in the world market place. Education
is
> not
> > B> the same as corporate earnings. You can't just lower the estimates.
I
> > B> worry a lot about our youth .. kids coming out of high school today
are
> > B> less informed that kids coming out of 8th grade 30 years ago. The
> damn
> > B> bar better get put back up where it belongs and teachers held
> accountable
> > B> and tested.
> >
> > B> Bob
> >
> >
> > B> At 05:57 PM 9/21/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> > >>Did the US have a choice in its conversion? It was convert or die.
The
> > >>manufacturing went elsewhere because they could do it just as good and
a
> lot
> > >>cheaper. The only other alternative we had was to become isolationists
> again
> > >>and ban imports. Our agriculture is going the same way right now.
> Garlic
> > >>is coming in from China at 1/2 the price it can be produced for in the
> US.
> > >>The same with oranges, grapefruit and other citrus from Australia and
> South
> > >>America. Are the grain markets in the same shape? Brazil, Australia,
> and
> > >>other countries are producing product for less. How long can a
subsidy
> > >>last? Where is our vaunted fishing fleet. Are there any American
flag
> > >>vessels left afloat, outside of the Navy and coast guard. Do we
produce
> > >>shoes or clothing any more? We still have a thriving wine industry.
> > >>
> > >>I have a question. Who does the service industry service? We have
> banks
> > >>that lend money to foreign countries that don't repay the loans. We
> have
> > >>computer companies that import all of the parts they assemble here.
So
> we
> > >>did save those high paying assembly line jobs. The fast food
> restaurants
> > >>are expanding overseas instead of in the US so those high paying
service
> > >>jobs at Wendy's and McD aren't going to shrink the unemployment rolls.
> The
> > >>banks can now lose money in insurance, brokerage and other non banking
> > >>endeavors. Even the federal government is sending our armaments for
> > >>production overseas.
> > >>
> > >>Were is the talent coming from to operate the high tech companies?
That
> > >>talent is coming from oversees. We can't even produce an intelligent
> work
> > >>force. There is one ever expanding area of the economy. Tattoo
parlors
> and
> > >>body piercing salons are popping up all over. Now there is a real
> future
> > >>for your kids. Am I missing something here? Ira
> > >>
> > >>----- Original Message -----
> > >>From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:54 PM
> > >>Subject: Re: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > Gary, do you have a URL for that article, sure would like to read
the
> > >>whole
> > >> > thing?
> > >> >
> > >> > I have long believed that true economic strength is built upon a
> strong
> > >>and
> > >> > resilient manufacturing base. I have also been saying for many
years
> that
> > >> > the US would suffer deeply in the next recession/depression for
> having
> > >> > converted to a service based economy.
> > >> >
> > >> > Earl
> > >> >
> > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > From: "Gary Funck" <gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> > To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:23 PM
> > >> > Subject: RE: [RT] 10 year note near 40 year highs ?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > > > From: Daniel Goncharoff [mailto:thegonch@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > >> > > > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 9:37 AM
> > >> > > > To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> > > > Subject: Re: [RT] 10 year note near 40 year highs ?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I think there are two sides to this point. Isn't a
service-based
> > >>economy
> > >> > > > more flexible than one based on large factories? It may mean
that
> > >> > > > changes come more easily, and that new industries can develop
> using
> > >>the
> > >> > > > excess information-based labor from weaker sectors.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > In this respect, telecoms will be a good real-life example. It
> will be
> > >> > > > interesting to see what happens to all the people getting laid
> off by
> > >> > > > the telecoms firms that won't be growing for several years. If
> they
> > >>end
> > >> > > > up having no place to go, that would indicate your believe is
> > >>validated.
> > >> > > > If they find new jobs in a similar field, I think the economic
> hit
> > >>will
> > >> > > > not be very big at all.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > In this week's Business Week, there's a rather disturbing article
> that
> > >> > refutes
> > >> > > the theory that a service based economy should be more resilient.
> > >>Excerpts
> > >> > > below:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
> > >> > >
> > >> > > NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The Educated Unemployed
> > >> > > The jobless rate for managers and professionals is likely to rise
> > >> > >
> > >> > > [...]
> > >> > > Here's why joblessness is likely to rise: Across the board,
> companies
> > >>are
> > >> > > facing an unholy trio of low profits, weak demand, and falling
> > >> > prices--with no
> > >> > > relief in sight. Revenues for the companies in the Standard &
> Poor's
> > >> > 500-stock
> > >> > > index are down 2% over the past year, adding to the pressure on
> > >>businesses
> > >> > to
> > >> > > cut costs by cutting workforces. At the same time, productivity
is
> > >>soaring
> > >> > at a
> > >> > > rapid clip--a 6% gain over last year at nonfinancial
corporations.
> > >>That's
> > >> > > allowing businesses to meet flat demand with fewer workers.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Even more distressing, some of the sectors where the job market
has
> > >>stayed
> > >> > > relatively strong--including health, education, finance, and
> retailing,
> > >> > which
> > >> > > together make up about 40% of the total workforce--are showing
> signs of
> > >> > > cracking. And the already grim labor picture in the airline,
> energy,
> > >> > > technology, telecom, and media sectors--some 7% of the
> workforce--keeps
> > >> > > deteriorating.
> > >> > > [...]
> > >> > > This is the dark side of the productivity boom. During the second
> half
> > >>of
> > >> > the
> > >> > > 1990s, output per worker rose, but soaring demand and revenues,
> driven
> > >>in
> > >> > part
> > >> > > by the technology and telecom boom, helped boost hiring and push
> down
> > >>the
> > >> > > unemployment rate below 4%. Wages and bonuses soared, and it
seemed
> like
> > >>a
> > >> > > golden age for workers.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > But rising productivity without rising demand is a recipe for
> > >>disappearing
> > >> > > jobs. If companies can't raise prices, the only way they can
boost
> > >>profits
> > >> > is
> > >> > > to cut workers--and higher productivity makes that possible.
> > >> > > [...]
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > >> > > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > >>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > >> > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > >>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > B> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > B> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > B> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/ySSFAA/zMEolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|