|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
tks....new book out called: INVASION:
Tells how we are letting in criminals and terrorists and the duplicity,
corruptness, and unwillingness
to enforce our laws and protect the citizens.
chas
----- Original Message -----
From: Kent Rollins <kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Charles Meyer <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 10:24 AM
Subject: Re[4]: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
> Generally, they certainly favor open borders. But that doesn't mean
> undefended borders and it doesn't mean not knowing who's coming in.
> It just means they favor allowing peaceful, law-abiding people to move
> around. Kind of like things as they are now. And not all Libertarians
> agree 100% on everything. I, for one, agree with Patty-Patty Buch-Buch
> on immigration at present: we need an immigration freeze (or atleast a
> raising of the standards) for a while to allow the melting pot to do
> it's job. But that's just me.
>
> Not all Democrats agree on everyhting. Not all Republicans agree on
> everything. Not all Libertarians agree on everything. You can join
> the Libertarian party and not get a frontal lobotomy. Ask for it by
> name.
>
> Kent
>
> The World's Smallest Political Quiz
> http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
>
>
>
> Monday, September 23, 2002, 10:46:48 AM, you wrote:
>
> > Hi Kent-
>
> > What do the Libertarians believe about an open border policy?
>
> > chas
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Kent Rollins <kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 5:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re[2]: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
>
>
> >> Libertarians all believe strongly in the rule of law. They just
disagree
> >> with the Republicrats and Demopublicans on which laws should exist and
> > which
> >> laws need to be repealed or modified. And not all Libertarians are
> >> Libertarians because they want to smoke pot. Some of us are
Libertarians
> >> because we realize where this country is headed if the
institutionalized
> >> ruling class isn't turned over.
> >>
> >> Kent
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Charles Meyer" <chaze@xxxxxxxx>
> >> To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 6:26 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
> >>
> >>
> >> 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/
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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/
>
>
>
> 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 ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/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/
|