OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

I ran my own small biz for 30 years and usually had an employee or two, and
for the 10 years before that I was in middle management of a large company
and responsible for budget and staffing of my dept, about 10 peoples job's
were at stake. Those 40 years are my entire education in "economics," so
I certainly don't claim to be expert. But, I see things posted here that
seem to be little more than blindly repeated, politically inspired, bunk, so
my own contributions can't fall too far below the bar that has been set.


//////////////////////////////////

Thoughts on ..

1) "creating jobs"

Every one of the millions of jobs that have been lost recently was "created"
at some previous time. Creating is damn easy, I could create one this
morning by simply hiring a "ranch manager." Problem is, I'd have to lay
him off this afternoon because I ran out of funds to support that job.
The "creating" is, at best, worthless unless they can be sustained.

It's true that 'Money' creates jobs, but, in most cases, that does NOT mean
what people think. Job's created by true venture capitalists are, I'm
sure, a very small % of the total. And venture capital does damn little
to sustain those jobs, the ideas, products and people 'capitalized' have to
produce and sell or the jobs soon vanish.

The money that matters most is the money that inspires and sustains a job.

For a simplistic example, let's say I own a small sto The business at
that store gradually grows and I notice lines at the registers, looks of
frustration in the faces of my increasing clientele when help isn't
available quickly. THEIR money, that I hope they will spend in my store,
is my inspiration to add an employee .... AND it's the money that will keep
that new guy employed, hopefully for years. Any money of my own ( or
borrowed ) that I use to get a new cash register, etc. is only a very short
term investment ... 'money' true, but not the really important money. The
important money is the money the average customer is spending, over the long
term.

And that important money must be available in quantity greater than just
enough to pay the new guys salary. I am a business man and I must recover
that salary, the money I spent on the register and interest, and increase my
profits. Tending to the problems associated with employees simply isn't
worth having another one UNLESS he makes me more than he costs me ...
obviously. Most businesses, regardless of size, add employees slowly,
one at a time nearly ( obviously there are seasonal exceptions and very
rapidly growing market ones too ). It's generally better biz to be a tiny
bit short handed than overstaffed. Taking a short term windfall to
'create a new job" unless the prospects of the long term flow of Mr.
Average's money will sustain that job is BAD business ... taking "$300,000
to creat 30 jobs" without a market to support them is pure folly.

The 'money' that is going to make my theoretical new guy's job possible as a
practical matter isn't MY "rich guy creating jobs' money, it's Joe Average's
money he spends and puts into the economy, partly via my store. I have
customers from all levels of the economy, the wealthy ones are steady
shoppers buying about the same in good times and bad, but it's the "Joes"
that buy when they can, don't when they have to cut back, that make the new
guys job secure, or not.


/////////////

other thoughts may follow in other posts

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

Larry L wrote:
I ran my own small biz for 30 years and usually had an employee or two, and
for the 10 years before that I was in middle management of a large company
and responsible for budget and staffing of my dept, about 10 peoples job's
were at stake. Those 40 years are my entire education in "economics," so
I certainly don't claim to be expert. But, I see things posted here that
seem to be little more than blindly repeated, politically inspired, bunk, so
my own contributions can't fall too far below the bar that has been set.


//////////////////////////////////

Thoughts on ..

1) "creating jobs"
good thoughts snipped

Well, you'd have more useful experience if you had weathered the
Great Depression.

We are not in normal circumstances and we can't just create the
ideal, perfect, permanent jobs. We have to make work, create any
and every damn job we can. Just like FDR did way back when.

I don't think a lot of people realize the magnitude of the impending
disaster.

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote


I don't think a lot of people realize the magnitude of the impending
disaster.

////////////////////

Aside: I'd guess that the words "wealth" and "money" have precise meanings
to
economists that I may abuse here. I welcome learning on the subject and
will try to correct further comments if I do learn better usage. :EndAside

/////////////////////////////


Actually, Ken, I agree. Those that criticise "spending" beyond what it
seems "short term stimulus" requires are the ones that, I believe, need to
consider that 'creating" and "sustaining" are NOT the same word.
National security demands both.

I, personally, have the remainer of a small mortgage but zero debt beyond
that and I've never, ever, bought what I couldn't pay for very quickly by
our cultural standards. Therefore the amount of 'money' I have has gone
down a lot lately, but my 'wealth' is about the same ... i.e. I own roughly
the same percentage of the same home, the same other goods, the same % of
the same companies, via stocks, and those companies largely have the same
percentage of market share and the same real products etc. The value of
that wealth has changed ... as measured in $$$, for sure .... I was once
'fairly well off' in dollars, now I'm not, but actually I'm pretty much the
same, and dollar value, market wide, will follow real value, eventually.


Too many jobs, and lives, have been built on adman bubble. Many people
( it's a cultural failing, not a politically inspired thing, imho ) have
built a lifestyle based on debt and never really had any wealth.
Regardless of what they drove or lived in, they didn't own squat.

Our "economy" has been largely based on illusion and mirror tricks for some
time now. It must go back to being based on real things, real production,
real goods, real services, real products. Sadly, there is no where near
enough of said "reality" to support the massive consumptavitis people have
grown to expect, so some very real pain is coming soon. ( hell it's here, 2
out of the last 5 businesses I've tried to contact locally have gone BK )

One thing 'investment money' CAN do is attempt to create new 'real' wealth,
i.e. new products, new markets, better uses of raw materials so that those
materials grow in value, etc.

Much of what Obama proposes ( from what I hear from both sides ) aims to do
just that, but only the one side hears it that way. We desparately need
some new things besides paper deals and mirrors behind our ecomomy and I,
for one, think that spending on 'green biz', 'education', and public
infastructure make great sense as ways to get dollars flowing over a fairly
long term while Mr Average readjusts his personal economy to more match his
personal reality, not his bubble. And when things start to turn around
we'll have good things to show for it, new industries, better schooled
workers, and levees less likely to break in a storm ( saving money on
disasters, btw, wingnuts ;-).

I don't think that the next several decades will see as much blind
consumption as what we've seen the last few, and I believe that anyone that
thinks we 'should" see it is dead wrong. IMHO, 'stimulus" as a word
misses the point. Yes we must act quickly and stimulate, but as a nation
we need readjusted expectations ... and a less grossly painful way to get
there, than 'market forces' alone will allow.

One thing this country is facing, politically, is a, more or less silly,
harping on exact wordage ... i.e. "stimulus" as an example,

This leads me to believe that arguing is more important than even trying to
understand in some circles. Let me add that anyone, in THESE times, that
is more interested in arguing for political gain, than understanding and
honestly working to solve our problems is ...... very unpatriotic


Let me quickly add, I don't believe anyone REALLY understands all of this
hugely complex mess ... and pretending to is nearly as dangerous as just
arguing for argument's sake. This is not a 'sound bite' level situation,
it's an intensely complicated one. Sound bite radio shows and politicians
( all sides ) are an enemy not a friend of a brighter future.

Those few Senators that went into a room together to try and hammer out a
'compromise,' each one undoubtedly aware that his or her own ideas may or
may not be the best or most useful, but that something had to be done, are
the heroes of the "stimulus" thus far, imho.

Those that COULD HAVE opened that door and joined them, but chose to stay
outside and chant politics about being 'left out' to the TV cameras
......... deserve our contempt. They have mine.

..

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Feb 9, 7:10*pm, "Larry L" wrote:
I ran my own small biz for 30 years and usually had an employee or two, and
for the 10 years before that I was in middle management of a large company
and responsible for budget and staffing of my dept, about 10 peoples job's
were at stake. * *Those 40 years are my entire education in "economics," so
I certainly don't claim to be expert. * * But, I see things posted here that
seem to be little more than blindly repeated, politically inspired, bunk, so
my own contributions can't fall too far below the bar that has been set.

//////////////////////////////////

Thoughts on ..

1) "creating jobs"

Every one of the millions of jobs that have been lost recently was "created"
at some previous time. * * Creating is damn easy, I could create one this
morning by simply hiring a "ranch manager." * *Problem is, I'd have to lay
him off this afternoon because I ran out of funds to support that job.
The "creating" is, at best, worthless unless they can be sustained.

It's true that 'Money' creates jobs, but, in most cases, *that does NOT mean
what people think. * * *Job's created by true venture capitalists are, I'm
sure, a very small % of the total. * * And venture capital does damn little
to sustain those jobs, the ideas, products and people 'capitalized' have to
produce and sell or the jobs soon vanish.

The money *that matters most is the money that inspires and sustains a job.

For a simplistic example, let's say I own a small sto * *The business at
that store gradually grows and I notice lines at the registers, looks of
frustration in the faces of my increasing clientele when help isn't
available quickly. * *THEIR money, that I hope they will spend in my store,
is my inspiration to add an employee .... AND it's the money that will keep
that new guy employed, hopefully for years. * * Any money of my own ( or
borrowed ) that I use to get a new cash register, etc. is only a very short
term investment ... 'money' true, but not the really important money. * *The
important money is the money the average customer is spending, over the long
term.

And that important money must be available in quantity greater than just
enough to pay the new guys salary. * I am a business man and I must recover
that salary, the money I spent on the register and interest, and increase my
profits. * *Tending to the problems associated with employees simply isn't
worth having another one UNLESS he makes me more than he costs me ...
obviously. * * *Most businesses, regardless of size, add employees slowly,
one at a time nearly ( obviously there are seasonal exceptions and very
rapidly growing market ones too ). * It's generally better biz to be a tiny
bit short handed than overstaffed. * *Taking a short term windfall to
'create a new job" unless the prospects of the long term flow of Mr.
Average's money will sustain that job is BAD business ... taking "$300,000
to creat 30 jobs" without a market to support them is pure folly.

The 'money' that is going to make my theoretical new guy's job possible as a
practical matter isn't MY "rich guy creating jobs' money, it's Joe Average's
money he spends and puts into the economy, partly via my store. * * I have
customers from all levels of the economy, the wealthy ones are steady
shoppers buying about the same in good times and bad, but it's the "Joes"
that buy when they can, don't when they have to cut back, that make the new
guys job secure, or not.

/////////////

other thoughts may follow in other posts

Jobs are created largely by means of intangibles, and one of those is
confidence. Value of money is merely one of the outward signs of that
confidence. If sufficient people lose confidence in the value of that
money, ( or loans, or shares, or firms themselves, or many other
things), the perceived value drops. They only represent what people
think they are worth, and have no intrinsic value.

The global disaster caused by people ( largely parasites who do
virtually no useful work), trading on loans, and operating a host of
other similar scams, which have no direct value at all, ( like
property, or a piece of bread), is still unfolding. Although
originally the collapse of American scams was to blame, the effect is
like knocking over a row of dominoes.

All the whinging and whining merely serves to sap consumer confidence,
and lower values still further,which destroys jobs, among other
things.

TL
MC

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Feb 9, 9:33*pm, wrote:
On Feb 9, 7:10*pm, "Larry L" wrote:



I ran my own small biz for 30 years and usually had an employee or two, and
for the 10 years before that I was in middle management of a large company
and responsible for budget and staffing of my dept, about 10 peoples job's
were at stake. * *Those 40 years are my entire education in "economics," so
I certainly don't claim to be expert. * * But, I see things posted here that
seem to be little more than blindly repeated, politically inspired, bunk, so
my own contributions can't fall too far below the bar that has been set..

//////////////////////////////////

Thoughts on ..

1) "creating jobs"

Every one of the millions of jobs that have been lost recently was "created"
at some previous time. * * Creating is damn easy, I could create one this
morning by simply hiring a "ranch manager." * *Problem is, I'd have to lay
him off this afternoon because I ran out of funds to support that job.
The "creating" is, at best, worthless unless they can be sustained.

It's true that 'Money' creates jobs, but, in most cases, *that does NOT mean
what people think. * * *Job's created by true venture capitalists are, I'm
sure, a very small % of the total. * * And venture capital does damn little
to sustain those jobs, the ideas, products and people 'capitalized' have to
produce and sell or the jobs soon vanish.

The money *that matters most is the money that inspires and sustains a job.

For a simplistic example, let's say I own a small sto * *The business at
that store gradually grows and I notice lines at the registers, looks of
frustration in the faces of my increasing clientele when help isn't
available quickly. * *THEIR money, that I hope they will spend in my store,
is my inspiration to add an employee .... AND it's the money that will keep
that new guy employed, hopefully for years. * * Any money of my own ( or
borrowed ) that I use to get a new cash register, etc. is only a very short
term investment ... 'money' true, but not the really important money. * *The
important money is the money the average customer is spending, over the long
term.

And that important money must be available in quantity greater than just
enough to pay the new guys salary. * I am a business man and I must recover
that salary, the money I spent on the register and interest, and increase my
profits. * *Tending to the problems associated with employees simply isn't
worth having another one UNLESS he makes me more than he costs me ...
obviously. * * *Most businesses, regardless of size, add employees slowly,
one at a time nearly ( obviously there are seasonal exceptions and very
rapidly growing market ones too ). * It's generally better biz to be a tiny
bit short handed than overstaffed. * *Taking a short term windfall to
'create a new job" unless the prospects of the long term flow of Mr.
Average's money will sustain that job is BAD business ... taking "$300,000
to creat 30 jobs" without a market to support them is pure folly.

The 'money' that is going to make my theoretical new guy's job possible as a
practical matter isn't MY "rich guy creating jobs' money, it's Joe Average's
money he spends and puts into the economy, partly via my store. * * I have
customers from all levels of the economy, the wealthy ones are steady
shoppers buying about the same in good times and bad, but it's the "Joes"
that buy when they can, don't when they have to cut back, that make the new
guys job secure, or not.

/////////////

other thoughts may follow in other posts

Jobs are created largely by means of intangibles, and one of those is
confidence. *Value of money is merely one of the outward signs of that
confidence. If sufficient people lose confidence in the value of that
money, ( or loans, or shares, or firms themselves, or many other
things), the perceived value drops. They only represent what people
think they are worth, and have no intrinsic value.

The global disaster caused by people ( largely parasites who do
virtually no useful work), trading on loans, and operating a host of
other similar scams, which have no direct value at all, ( like
property, or a piece of bread), is still unfolding. Although
originally the collapse of American scams was to blame, the effect is
like knocking over a row of dominoes.

All the whinging and whining merely serves to sap consumer confidence,
and lower values still further,which destroys jobs, among other
things.

TL
MC

Also, various governments around the world have now initiated various
"stimulus" packages. These are at best stopgaps, as the "money" they
are using is merely redirected from other things, its value drops even
more as a result. Much of it is also illusory, as it is not possible
to control the value of money in the face of widespread lack of
confidence. This results in inflation, and more and more problems.

You can't eat money, and it's useless if becomes worthless by virtue
of lack of consumer, investor and manufacturer confidence.

Too many people live on the proceeds of scamming others, including
governments, bureacracies, and the until numbers of banks and money-
grubbers, who exist on the basis of greed and scams.

Many many people lack faith in their governments, among many other
things, and this eventually causes disaster in systems which rely on
constant expansion, most especially when those systems are basically
unsound.

TL
MC

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Feb 9, 9:48*pm, wrote:
On Feb 9, 9:33*pm, wrote:



On Feb 9, 7:10*pm, "Larry L" wrote:

I ran my own small biz for 30 years and usually had an employee or two, and
for the 10 years before that I was in middle management of a large company
and responsible for budget and staffing of my dept, about 10 peoples job's
were at stake. * *Those 40 years are my entire education in "economics," so
I certainly don't claim to be expert. * * But, I see things posted here that
seem to be little more than blindly repeated, politically inspired, bunk, so
my own contributions can't fall too far below the bar that has been set.

//////////////////////////////////

Thoughts on ..

1) "creating jobs"

Every one of the millions of jobs that have been lost recently was "created"
at some previous time. * * Creating is damn easy, I could create one this
morning by simply hiring a "ranch manager." * *Problem is, I'd have to lay
him off this afternoon because I ran out of funds to support that job..
The "creating" is, at best, worthless unless they can be sustained.

It's true that 'Money' creates jobs, but, in most cases, *that does NOT mean
what people think. * * *Job's created by true venture capitalists are, I'm
sure, a very small % of the total. * * And venture capital does damn little
to sustain those jobs, the ideas, products and people 'capitalized' have to
produce and sell or the jobs soon vanish.

The money *that matters most is the money that inspires and sustains a job.

For a simplistic example, let's say I own a small sto * *The business at
that store gradually grows and I notice lines at the registers, looks of
frustration in the faces of my increasing clientele when help isn't
available quickly. * *THEIR money, that I hope they will spend in my store,
is my inspiration to add an employee .... AND it's the money that will keep
that new guy employed, hopefully for years. * * Any money of my own ( or
borrowed ) that I use to get a new cash register, etc. is only a very short
term investment ... 'money' true, but not the really important money. * *The
important money is the money the average customer is spending, over the long
term.

And that important money must be available in quantity greater than just
enough to pay the new guys salary. * I am a business man and I must recover
that salary, the money I spent on the register and interest, and increase my
profits. * *Tending to the problems associated with employees simply isn't
worth having another one UNLESS he makes me more than he costs me ...
obviously. * * *Most businesses, regardless of size, add employees slowly,
one at a time nearly ( obviously there are seasonal exceptions and very
rapidly growing market ones too ). * It's generally better biz to be a tiny
bit short handed than overstaffed. * *Taking a short term windfall to
'create a new job" unless the prospects of the long term flow of Mr.
Average's money will sustain that job is BAD business ... taking "$300,000
to creat 30 jobs" without a market to support them is pure folly.

The 'money' that is going to make my theoretical new guy's job possible as a
practical matter isn't MY "rich guy creating jobs' money, it's Joe Average's
money he spends and puts into the economy, partly via my store. * * I have
customers from all levels of the economy, the wealthy ones are steady
shoppers buying about the same in good times and bad, but it's the "Joes"
that buy when they can, don't when they have to cut back, that make the new
guys job secure, or not.

/////////////

other thoughts may follow in other posts

Jobs are created largely by means of intangibles, and one of those is
confidence. *Value of money is merely one of the outward signs of that
confidence. If sufficient people lose confidence in the value of that
money, ( or loans, or shares, or firms themselves, or many other
things), the perceived value drops. They only represent what people
think they are worth, and have no intrinsic value.

The global disaster caused by people ( largely parasites who do
virtually no useful work), trading on loans, and operating a host of
other similar scams, which have no direct value at all, ( like
property, or a piece of bread), is still unfolding. Although
originally the collapse of American scams was to blame, the effect is
like knocking over a row of dominoes.

All the whinging and whining merely serves to sap consumer confidence,
and lower values still further,which destroys jobs, among other
things.

TL
MC

Also, various governments around the world have now initiated various
"stimulus" packages. These are at best stopgaps, as the "money" they
are using is merely redirected from other things, its value drops even
more as a result. Much of it is also illusory, as it is not possible
to control the value of money in the face of widespread lack of
confidence. This results in inflation, and more and more problems.

You can't eat money, and it's useless if becomes worthless by virtue
of lack of consumer, investor and manufacturer confidence.

Too many people live on the proceeds of scamming others, including
governments, bureacracies, and the until numbers of banks and money-
grubbers, who exist on the basis of greed and scams.

Many many people lack faith in their governments, among many other
things, and this eventually causes disaster in systems which rely on
constant expansion, most especially when those systems are basically
unsound.

TL
MC

For "and the until numbers " read and the UNTOLD numbers"

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Feb 9, 9:50*pm, wrote:

Also, there is a widespread lack of confidence and belief in a whole
host of governments, as people realise they are largely incompetent,
and merely riding on the backs of those who actually produce
something. There may be a few idealists, but the vast majority of
politicians are politicians for personal power and gain. Same goes for
banks, investment scam artists, and all the other similar stuff. They
are no better than criminals who steal your money directly.

TL
MC

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

wrote


All the whinging and whining merely serves to sap consumer confidence,
and lower values still further,which destroys jobs, among other
things.

TL
MC


\////////////////////////////

CONFIDENCE

this is one thing that strikes me as one of the biggest challenges facing
our 'leaders'



We have an entire 'side' that is actively trying to erode confidence, hoping
for personal political gain at the expense of the country


We have a leader that tells us daily how bad things are going to be,
certainly partly for political gain, but also because we need to be warned
to avoid panic, prepare, and plan for recovery, personal and worldwide.

'Pollyanna' confidence is out of line, reality needs to be understood ....
"their plan can't work, so just suffer until you can elect us" efforts to
undermine recovery are,
well,
efforts to undermine recovery .... pick you own words for that,

mine come close to 'traitor'

Larry L ( who thinks effort, real effort, even effort that falls sort of
'ideal goals' ... always outperforms bitching, .... but knows the wingnuts
prefer to bitch, Rush has built his fortune on it, Mr Negativity that he
is )

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Feb 9, 10:06*pm, "Larry L" wrote:
wrote

All the whinging and whining merely serves to sap consumer confidence,
and lower values still further,which destroys jobs, among other
things.

TL
MC

\////////////////////////////

CONFIDENCE

this is one thing that strikes me as one of the biggest challenges facing
our 'leaders'

We have an entire 'side' that is actively trying to erode confidence, hoping
for personal political gain at the expense of the country

We have a leader that tells us daily how bad things are going to be,
certainly partly for political gain, but also because we need to be warned
to avoid panic, prepare, and plan for recovery, personal and worldwide.

'Pollyanna' confidence is out of line, *reality needs to be understood .....
"their plan can't work, so just suffer until you can elect us" efforts to
undermine recovery are,
well,
efforts to undermine recovery .... pick you own words for that,

mine come close to 'traitor'

Larry L ( who thinks effort, real effort, even effort that falls sort of
'ideal goals' ... always outperforms bitching, .... but knows the wingnuts
prefer to bitch, Rush has built his fortune on it, Mr Negativity that he
is )

This is also basically a scam, large chunks of the media rely on
disaster and contention to sell their "news". Eventually, many
sensible people realise that this is actually worth less than a fart
in a hurricane, but if enough believe it, it has deleterious effects.
Also, the operating word here is "sensible". There are surprisingly
few sensible and honourable people, especiall when it comes to
personal gain or power.

Basically the same thing that destroyed this newsgroup as a fishing
forum. If enough people undermine something, it eventually collapses.

Political systems in many (democratic) countries are largely based on
contention of basic views on how things should be run. In practice, it
does not actually make a great deal of difference who actually
governs, as long as things are stable. When things start to go wrong,
mismanagement makes them worse, it is also largely irrelevant which
political party does the actual mismanagement, the effects are the
same.

Major issues like overpopulation, the rapid depletion of resources,
and a host of other things, are barely even sensibly addressed by
various governments.

Whatever. No point in adding my voice to the clamour here.

TL
MC

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

"Larry L" wrote in message
...

very well thought out piece, snipped

In a way, Larry, you get to part of what I was trying to get at.....a lot of
the business of job creation depends on the outlook of the potential
customers that are going to drive your(or any) business. Much of what the
current proposals aim at, are a dire attempt to at least stabilize an ever
more pessimistic public mindset, which is driving a downward spiral.
Tom

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Feb 9, 7:10*pm, "Larry L" wrote:
I ran my own small biz for 30 years and usually had an employee or two, and
for the 10 years before that I was in middle management of a large company
and responsible for budget and staffing of my dept, about 10 peoples job's
were at stake. * *Those 40 years are my entire education in "economics," so
I certainly don't claim to be expert. * * But, I see things posted here that
seem to be little more than blindly repeated, politically inspired, bunk, so
my own contributions can't fall too far below the bar that has been set.

//////////////////////////////////

Thoughts on ..

1) "creating jobs"

Every one of the millions of jobs that have been lost recently was "created"
at some previous time. * * Creating is damn easy, I could create one this
morning by simply hiring a "ranch manager." * *Problem is, I'd have to lay
him off this afternoon because I ran out of funds to support that job.
The "creating" is, at best, worthless unless they can be sustained.

It's true that 'Money' creates jobs, but, in most cases, *that does NOT mean
what people think. * * *Job's created by true venture capitalists are, I'm
sure, a very small % of the total. * * And venture capital does damn little
to sustain those jobs, the ideas, products and people 'capitalized' have to
produce and sell or the jobs soon vanish.

The money *that matters most is the money that inspires and sustains a job.

For a simplistic example, let's say I own a small sto * *The business at
that store gradually grows and I notice lines at the registers, looks of
frustration in the faces of my increasing clientele when help isn't
available quickly. * *THEIR money, that I hope they will spend in my store,
is my inspiration to add an employee .... AND it's the money that will keep
that new guy employed, hopefully for years. * * Any money of my own ( or
borrowed ) that I use to get a new cash register, etc. is only a very short
term investment ... 'money' true, but not the really important money. * *The
important money is the money the average customer is spending, over the long
term.

And that important money must be available in quantity greater than just
enough to pay the new guys salary. * I am a business man and I must recover
that salary, the money I spent on the register and interest, and increase my
profits. * *Tending to the problems associated with employees simply isn't
worth having another one UNLESS he makes me more than he costs me ...
obviously. * * *Most businesses, regardless of size, add employees slowly,
one at a time nearly ( obviously there are seasonal exceptions and very
rapidly growing market ones too ). * It's generally better biz to be a tiny
bit short handed than overstaffed. * *Taking a short term windfall to
'create a new job" unless the prospects of the long term flow of Mr.
Average's money will sustain that job is BAD business ... taking "$300,000
to creat 30 jobs" without a market to support them is pure folly.

The 'money' that is going to make my theoretical new guy's job possible as a
practical matter isn't MY "rich guy creating jobs' money, it's Joe Average's
money he spends and puts into the economy, partly via my store. * * I have
customers from all levels of the economy, the wealthy ones are steady
shoppers buying about the same in good times and bad, but it's the "Joes"
that buy when they can, don't when they have to cut back, that make the new
guys job secure, or not.

/////////////

other thoughts may follow in other posts

Some of the realities of global economics;

http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=613

TL
MC

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Feb 9, 5:07*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Larry L" wrote in message

...

very well thought out piece, snipped

In a way, Larry, you get to part of what I was trying to get at.....a lot of
the business of job creation depends on the outlook of the potential
customers that are going to drive your(or any) business. Much of what the
current proposals aim at, are a dire attempt to at least stabilize an ever
more pessimistic public mindset, which is driving a downward spiral.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

As usual, the media is leading the way toward doom and gloom. They
can't wait to report the latest failed company or the newest round of
layoffs. Sure, that's all news, and it must somehow be reported, but
do they have to continually hammer home the idea that our economy is
doomed? There must be some positive news somewhere that they could do
2 minutes on at 6:30.

I agree that the "American Dream" must become more realistic, as must
our expectations of a complete recovery. Like Larry, as I approached
retirement, I paid down debt, so now, my mortgage is paid, I have
income from SS, my wife has SS plus a small pension, and I have a
little other income, independent of the stock market. I have a year
left to pay on my car, which should last me until I can no longer
drive, so I am basically a spectator rather than a participant in the
recession.

As far as the stimulus package is concerned, I think that the initial
investments should be in 'shovel ready" infrastructure repair, and
education. Get as many people back to work in worthwhile occupations
as quickly as possible. As the economy improves, low/no interest loans
to small businesses that have realistic business plans would be in
order. Tax cuts take too long to have an effect, haven't proved
effective over the past 8 years, and would be counterproductive, as
the revenue stream will be needed to fund the stimulus. There will be
plenty of time for tax cuts when businesses become profitable.

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

"MajorOz" wrote in message
...
2. It MUST be restricted to only useful vocations. No psych/soch or
other fingerpainting career paths.

It must be a blessing to be so blind as to not see the benefits from Liberal
Arts. Yes, I agree we could use more science and math students. It would
help, if we had an economy with jobs in math and science, which at present
we really don't. Yet, one of the lessons from the Depression/WWII era is
that higher education, without restriction, when done right, provides people
the insight and problem-solving skills to think outside the box, to continue
learning through life and contribute(both at work and in their communities)
more to the society.
As to your suggestion about a Manhattan Project around fusion energy, I
think there is a component in the stimulus that involves R and D around
energy independence/green energy. It seems like an equivalent to what you
call for.
Finally, I think that your point of view reflects an attitude of "I'm doing
OK, so where's the problem?" that rather smacks of arrogance. Maybe, I am
merely misreading you, OZ, but if you don't think a lot of people are
hurting and many more are scared in the present, you are kidding yourself.
And, if you think that because you are doing ok, financially, this ****
won't affect you, adversely, in ways your checkbook won't buy you out of,
you are very wrong.
Tom

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

"george9219" wrote in message
...
As usual, the media is leading the way toward doom and gloom. They
can't wait to report the latest failed company or the newest round of
layoffs. Sure, that's all news, and it must somehow be reported, but
do they have to continually hammer home the idea that our economy is
doomed?

actually, I think the media has been restrained, to some extent, from
presenting some of the more dire scenarios which I have read from
professional economists. I sort of think folks are running scared in large
part not from the press, but opening those envelopes from the Financial
Managers and Retirement/401 statements.
As far as the stimulus package is concerned, I think that the initial
investments should be in 'shovel ready" infrastructure repair, and
education. Get as many people back to work in worthwhile occupations
as quickly as possible. As the economy improves, low/no interest loans
to small businesses that have realistic business plans would be in
order. Tax cuts take too long to have an effect, haven't proved
effective over the past 8 years, and would be counterproductive, as
the revenue stream will be needed to fund the stimulus. There will be
plenty of time for tax cuts when businesses become profitable.

I tend to agree. I just hope it works.......

Tom

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Feb 9, 5:00*pm, MajorOz wrote:
On a percentage basis, it is the Gap, Old Navy,
Starbucks crowd doing all the holleringl

Not to detract from your point, but have you ever *been* in an Old
Navy?

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

Let's see....... Obama wants 3,000,000 jobs, and it's gonna cost us
$900,000,000,000.00. Sounds like a fair return on the buck, eh?

Unemployment is now 7.5%. It was double digits in the late 70s.
Inflation is still low. It was double digits in that late 70s.
Interest rates are very low. They were double digits in the late 70s.

It's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles in the nuthouse would
have you believe. The sky ain't falling, Larry. Go fishing.

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Feb 10, 1:02*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Let's see....... Obama wants 3,000,000 jobs, and it's gonna cost us
$900,000,000,000.00. *Sounds like a fair return on the buck, eh?

Unemployment is now 7.5%. *It was double digits in the late 70s.
Inflation is still low. *It was double digits in that late 70s.
Interest rates are very low. *They were double digits in the late 70s.

It's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles in the nuthouse would
have you believe. *The sky ain't falling, Larry. *Go fishing.

Nope, Obama only wants one job, president, and he got it.

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote



Go fishing.




I was planning to today, but it was windy here, I'll get out one day this
week .... hopefully

We've had a bit of rain and the rivers may get muddy, so it may be
stillwater fly fishing for planters, but that is still better than more of
this trolling on UseNet ;-)

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
It's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles in the nuthouse would
have you believe.

dude, this is the starting point. Where it ends up could very well be worse
than you apparently seem capable of imagining.
Tom
p.s--Chart out the job losses from last October to the present, on a monthly
basis. Do you really think this is the end of the cycle, David??

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
It's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles in the nuthouse would
have you believe.

dude, this is the starting point. Where it ends up could very well be
worse than you apparently seem capable of imagining.
Tom
p.s--Chart out the job losses from last October to the present, on a
monthly basis. Do you really think this is the end of the cycle, David??

An addendum for you, David:
Along with the unemployment problem, we also have a large level of
underemployment; people working, but not able to get full time work. In my
county, we have 7.1% unemployment(slightly better than average), but close
to another 11% underemployed. This is something not seen since the Great
Depression crisis. You must see this sort of thing in MA as well, especially
working, as you do, with a food bank(a truly creditable activity on your
part, and a great example of why I expressed disappointment at your position
in this financial mess).
Tom

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:02:19 -0500, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

Let's see....... Obama wants 3,000,000 jobs, and it's gonna cost us
$900,000,000,000.00. Sounds like a fair return on the buck, eh?

Unemployment is now 7.5%. It was double digits in the late 70s.
Inflation is still low. It was double digits in that late 70s.
Interest rates are very low. They were double digits in the late 70s.

It's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles in the nuthouse would
have you believe. The sky ain't falling, Larry. Go fishing.



http://www.speaker.gov/img/jobsrecessions.jpg

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Dave LaCourse" wrote:
It's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles in the nuthouse would
have you believe.

dude, this is the starting point. Where it ends up could very well be worse
than you apparently seem capable of imagining.

Not to worry Tom. When Louie Limbaugh LaPlac with his high school
diploma and driver's ed credentials contradicts almost all of the
credible economists on the planet you can believe in Louie and
ignore all those silly PhDs and Nobel prize winners. Why you can
take Louie's advice and put it in the bank. Yep, you could deposit
it directly into Washington Mutual. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:58:40 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

p.s--Chart out the job losses from last October to the present, on a monthly
basis. Do you really think this is the end of the cycle, David??

No. Things are going to get worse. But paying $900 billion for 3
million jobs just doesn't make sense, Tom. They still haven't gotten
rid of the pork in the bill. It is NOT a stimulus package. Obama
himself called it a "spending" package. I agree that a stimulus
package is needed, but not this one. Are you so blind you can not see
all the pork, all the Democrat paybacks, all the crooks stealing our
money. Pass a package, but it had better be a stimulus package and
not a spending one.

Dave

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:20:19 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

An addendum for you, David:
Along with the unemployment problem, we also have a large level of
underemployment; people working, but not able to get full time work. In my
county, we have 7.1% unemployment(slightly better than average), but close
to another 11% underemployed. This is something not seen since the Great
Depression crisis. You must see this sort of thing in MA as well, especially
working, as you do, with a food bank(a truly creditable activity on your
part, and a great example of why I expressed disappointment at your position
in this financial mess).

No, I haven't seen it. In fact, Joanne just hired two new electronic
engineers, while laying off a graphic artist. She will hire a couple
of more engineers in a few months after a reorg.

There are always underemployed people, and probably always will be.
Like I said, if you take the money being spent and divide it by the
number of jobs being "created", the answer is mind boggling.

If Obama gave me $300,000, I would buy a truck, get a loan and build
another income property. Think how YOU could influence the economy of
this country if YOU were given $300,000 to spend on it. This is not a
stiumuls package, Tom.

Dave

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:55:18 -0600, George Cleveland
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:02:19 -0500, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

Let's see....... Obama wants 3,000,000 jobs, and it's gonna cost us
$900,000,000,000.00. Sounds like a fair return on the buck, eh?

Unemployment is now 7.5%. It was double digits in the late 70s.
Inflation is still low. It was double digits in that late 70s.
Interest rates are very low. They were double digits in the late 70s.

It's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles in the nuthouse would
have you believe. The sky ain't falling, Larry. Go fishing.



http://www.speaker.gov/img/jobsrecessions.jpg

Nice chart, but unemployment is still at 7.1%, way, way below what it
was in the late 70s. There are more people now employed than there
has ever been in history. This idea that Obama is putting out that
only government can create jobs is a bunch of horse caca. Government
doesn't create jobs unless they are "make work" jobs like FDR did.

Stimulate the economy? Give money to the people. They will spend it
or invest it. THAT is the way to stimulate an economy. Every tax cut
in history was followed by more money coming into government's
coffers.

We are headed for a depression, no doubt. And that depression will be
followed by socialism. I pray I am gone before that happens.

Dave

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:22:56 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Dave LaCourse" wrote:
It's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles in the nuthouse would
have you believe.

dude, this is the starting point. Where it ends up could very well be worse
than you apparently seem capable of imagining.

Not to worry Tom. When Louie Limbaugh LaPlac with his high school
diploma and driver's ed credentials contradicts almost all of the
credible economists on the planet you can believe in Louie and
ignore all those silly PhDs and Nobel prize winners. Why you can
take Louie's advice and put it in the bank. Yep, you could deposit
it directly into Washington Mutual. ;-)

Ken, grow up. Your arguments with Connor were full of ad hominem
attacks, and very little facts. You are a one trick pony, Ken.

I *agree* that we are headed for a depression, but spending $900
billion, mostly on pork, is not going to solve the problem. And, my
grandchildren and their children are going to pay for it. I will
never see any benefits from this bill, and neither will you.

Education? Yup, I only have a high school education.
But my life has been very successful. Go figure, huh? Beautiful wife
and family, no debt, good income without working. Yup, that was one
helluva good high school. Too bad you didn't use YOUR education.
Prior planning prevents **** poor performance. You still haven't
learned that, have you?

Davey

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Feb 9, 5:08*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"MajorOz" wrote in message

...
2. *It MUST be restricted to only useful vocations. *No psych/soch or
other fingerpainting career paths.

It must be a blessing to be so blind as to not see the benefits from Liberal
Arts.

As it must be a curse to manufacture inferences where no implications
exist.

As an old Jeb, I, more than most, understand the value of liberal
arts. But to conflate that with psych/soch is to illustrate ignorance
of curricula. Every street corner post-sec school in the US has a
feel good Oprah program. The GI bill I propose leaves it out because
it already exists in great number.

Yes, I agree we could use more science and math students. It would
help, if we had an economy with jobs in math and science, which at present
we really don't.

Did you read the whole section? "...when we come out the end...".
Also, the presence of these trained professionals, by itself,
contributes to the climate that creates those specific jobs.

As to your suggestion about a Manhattan Project around fusion energy, I
think there is a component in the stimulus that involves R and D around
energy independence/green energy. It seems like an equivalent to what you
call for.

While admitting I haven't made an exhaustive study of that portion of
the proposal(s), my limited information and impression is that it
leans more toward the PC types and does little to address the
fundamental problems of the feel-good aspects of "clean" energy --
selenium production, efficiency losses, land use, etc.
When all the smoke clears, both in the skulls and out, we will be
forced to understand that, if any semblance of life-as-we-know-it is
to be maintained, nuclear is the only way it can be done. To think
otherwise may be sweet and gentle, but childish.

Side note: For our own narrow interests, imagine that all the
drinking water in the US was produced as a BYPRODUCT of nuclear power,
and that no dams were needed to produce electricity -- far in the
future, yes, but the obvious end result. It would seem there would be
more and better trout fishing available.

Finally, I think that your point of view reflects an attitude of "I'm doing
OK, so where's the problem?"

Unfortunate that you, again draw an erroneous conclusion.

It says: "Those who pay attention, pay their bills, do not allow
pretentiousness to govern their economic habits, and understand that
jobs change and, therefore, prepare for such, survive and usually
continue to do well in all economic situations and, while they
sympathize with and help those who have genuine problems -- fire,
flood, famine -- have none for those who contribute to their own
misery."

Maybe, I am merely misreading you, OZ, ...

In the main, you are.

And, if you think that because you are doing ok, financially, this ****
won't affect you, adversely, in ways your checkbook won't buy you out of,
you are very wrong.

Please, if you have time, illustrate to me how this last might have
any semblance of truth.

cheers

oz, contributing by spending more than he should
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Feb 9, 5:16*pm, "mr.rapidan" wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:00*pm, MajorOz wrote:

On a percentage basis, it is the Gap, Old Navy,
Starbucks crowd doing all the holleringl

Not to detract from your point, but have you ever *been* in an Old
Navy?

The local one is somewhat "upscale". May be unrepresentative.

[ someone, no doubt, is thinking: "Man...if he thinks Old Navy is
'upscale', what kind of third-world area does he live in?" ]

Substitute pretentious store of your choice.

And, thass OK, the point is made. If you pay $4.00 for a cup of
coffee, some god, somewhere, should slap you upside the head.

Old fart's ramble:
Near where I fish tail water once in a while is a crossroads all-you-
can-eat catfish buffet place. I often go there of a Friday night.
You get as much deep fried, NON GREASY, corn meal rolled catfish, pork
and beans, nutty cabbage, cornbread, pea salad, potato salad, corn,
green beans, jell-o, fruit cocktail, sweet tea or other drinks, home
made cobblers to die for, topped with ice cream, as you can waddle
away with after eating.
They also have local bluegrass folks come in and sing for a couple
hours. I pay the bill FOR TWO PEOPLE, leave a 15-20% tip, leave a
couple bucks for the band, and walk out with a buck and a half change
from a twenty.

There isn't a Starbucks within 60 miles.

cheers

oz, who invites one and all to come with me some Friday night.

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Feb 9, 6:02*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Let's see....... Obama wants 3,000,000 jobs, and it's gonna cost us
$900,000,000,000.00. *Sounds like a fair return on the buck, eh?

Unemployment is now 7.5%. *It was double digits in the late 70s.
Inflation is still low. *It was double digits in that late 70s.
Interest rates are very low. *They were double digits in the late 70s.

And one of the major pieces of legislation that brought us out of that
mess (other than tax cuts, which work every time) was the Job Training
and Partnership Act (JTPA), written by -- HOLD ON TO YOUR ASSES,
LIBERALS -- Dan Quayle.

It's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles in the nuthouse would
have you believe. *The sky ain't falling, Larry. *Go fishing.

Shame on you, Dave.

Don't destroy the agenda.

cheers

oz, tying up #20 zebras

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Feb 9, 6:58*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message

...

It's nowhere near as bad as the Chicken Littles in the nuthouse would
have you believe.

dude, this is the starting point. Where it ends up could very well be worse
than you apparently seem capable of imagining.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom
p.s--Chart out the job losses from last October to the present, on a monthly
basis. Do you really think this is the end of the cycle, David??

Chart out the temperature loses from last October to the present. Do
you really not expect it to continue to get colder?

Do not confuse a snapshot with a videotape.

cheers

oz, who owns a ruler (and knows how to use it)

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

MajorOz wrote:
And one of the major pieces of legislation that brought us out of that
mess (other than tax cuts, which work every time) ...

Yet another denizen of the Twilight Zone. Where on earth have *you*
been living for the past eight years ?

Reagonomics has passed on! It is no more! It has ceased to be! It's
expired and gone to meet it's maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life,
it rests in peace! It's pushing up the daisies! It's metabolic
processes are now history! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket,
it's shuffled off the mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the
friggin' choir invisible!! IT HAS BEEN DISPROVED AND DISGRACED !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:08:40 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

IT HAS BEEN DISPROVED AND DISGRACED !!

Horse caca.

JFK in 61. Economy recovered.

Reagan in the 80s. Economy recovered.

Bush in the 00s. Economy recovered. Every time there is a tax cut,
more money is returned to the government's coffers. Look back in
history.

Dave

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Feb 10, 3:48*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:

Reagan in the 80s. *Economy recovered.

From the new book, "Tear Down This Myth" by Will Bunch:

"His 1981 tax cut was followed quickly by tax hikes that you rarely
hear about, and Reagan's real lasting achievement on that front was
slashing marginal rates for the wealthy - even as rising payroll taxes
socked the working class. His promise to shrink government was uttered
so many times that many acolytes believe it really happened, but in
fact Reagan expanded the federal payroll, added a new cabinet post,
and created a huge debt that ultimately tripped up his handpicked
successor, George H.W. Bush. What he did shrink was government
regulation and oversight - linked to a series of unfortunate events
from the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s to the sub-prime
mortgage crisis of the late 2000s."


Sorry for the cut & paste, but I took the easy way out instead of
writing it myself. It's been long understood that the Reagan "legacy"
was mostly bull**** concocted as a GOP marketing tool rather than
based on what actually happened under his administration. (And Iran-
Contra is always conveniently omitted from his "legacy".) He's
remembered for his first year tax cuts, but he increased taxes in each
of his subsequent seven years in office. Reagan's real strength and
success was in connecting with the people; but his actual
accomplishments were less than stellar in many ways.

Bush in the 00s. Economy recovered.

Huh? A tidy surplus to a defecit, **** poor job creation for eight
years, now the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression? This
you call an economic recovery? I'm willing to give Saint Ronnie a
little credit; but Bush has been an epic disaster for the economy.

I realize you may be doing okay; but surely you don't see the present
crisis as an economic recovery for America.

Joe F.

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
No. Things are going to get worse. But paying $900 billion for 3
million jobs just doesn't make sense, Tom.

But, it does, David. Here's why: by creating/saving 3 million jobs, you
MIGHT boost the public confidence level, and you MIGHT stop that downward
spiral seen in George C's graph. I emphasize the word 'might' because it is
only a best possible guess scenario. I'm just being honest there.


They still haven't gotten
rid of the pork in the bill.

find me one item of 'Pork' that doesn't lead to someone getting or keeping a
job. Otherwise it works as stimulus. Just because it reflects the wishes of
some public official to serve his specific constituency is completely
irrelevant.

It is NOT a stimulus package. Obama
himself called it a "spending" package. I agree that a stimulus
package is needed, but not this one. Are you so blind you can not see
all the pork, all the Democrat paybacks, all the crooks stealing our
money. Pass a package, but it had better be a stimulus package and
not a spending one.

As has been stated, very clearly, in simple English, by the President, and
pretty much every damned economist in the nation, I will repeat for you: A
stimulus package IS A SPENDING PACKAGE!!!!!!!

yeesh!
Tom

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
No, I haven't seen it.

Either your local economy is wildly different from ours, or you ain't
looking too hard.

Like I said, if you take the money being spent and divide it by the
number of jobs being "created", the answer is mind boggling.

If Obama gave me $300,000, I would buy a truck, get a loan and build
another income property. Think how YOU could influence the economy of
this country if YOU were given $300,000 to spend on it.

Where in the dickens do you come up with $300,000 per person, David?? Here's
how your math works: 300,000
times 300,000,000 US residents equals 90 TRILLION dollars. I will guess that
more stimulus will be needed, but I suspect it will fall a bit short of $90
trillion. Maybe that is what has pushed you view of this package, your own
calculations!g
Tom


Dave

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

"MajorOz" wrote in message
...

As an old Jeb, I, more than most, understand the value of liberal
arts. But to conflate that with psych/soch is to illustrate ignorance
of curricula. Every street corner post-sec school in the US has a
feel good Oprah program. The GI bill I propose leaves it out because
it already exists in great number.

gee, I have contact(via contributions and the like) with several 'post-sec'
schools of decent repute. A true, well rounded University Education is not a
feel-good program, and serves it's students and the nation just fine. I read
the inference YOU wrote.

Did you read the whole section? "...when we come out the end...".
Also, the presence of these trained professionals, by itself,
contributes to the climate that creates those specific jobs.

It has never worked that way in the past, and I can cite tons of examples
for you. Why would you assume it would happen now. This nation's basic
science infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate for a couple
decades-plus. We have to almost force a return to basic scientific research.
Technological(business) development flows from the findings of basic
research. We, as a nation, lost sight of that fact.


While admitting I haven't made an exhaustive study of that portion of
the proposal(s), my limited information and impression is that it
leans more toward the PC types and does little to address the
fundamental problems of the feel-good aspects of "clean" energy --
selenium production, efficiency losses, land use, etc.
When all the smoke clears, both in the skulls and out, we will be
forced to understand that, if any semblance of life-as-we-know-it is
to be maintained, nuclear is the only way it can be done. To think
otherwise may be sweet and gentle, but childish.

or, just a level of farsighted thinking you haven't gotten your head around.
Nuclear fission technology, on a level needed to feed the US grid, is a
potential ecological disaster. Fusion research is a fine idea, but
everything I've ever read indicates potential shortcomings that need serious
work.

Side note: For our own narrow interests, imagine that all the
drinking water in the US was produced as a BYPRODUCT of nuclear power,
and that no dams were needed to produce electricity -- far in the
future, yes, but the obvious end result. It would seem there would be
more and better trout fishing available.

A fine goal, which we can both agree upon. On the other hand, trout fishing
is something I am not going to obsess on, if I have to ignore the ongoing
survival of my nation to do it. Side note, back at ya: With all that water,
you could consider moving it back and forth across the nation, in giant
pipes. I know a guy with a plan for thatg.

Finally, I think that your point of view reflects an attitude of "I'm
doing
OK, so where's the problem?"

Unfortunate that you, again draw an erroneous conclusion.

It says:snipped

Please, if you have time, illustrate to me how this last might have
any semblance of truth.

OK, Oz, and I will try to oversimplify, so forgive me. If the economic
spirals down badly enough, and the nation as a whole doesn't pitch in to
avert the disaster, you might well be looking at:
1. A banking system essentially available for buyout by
foreign entities with the cash to do so.
2. A debt to China that cannot be repaid
3. A nation in social upheaval to the point of revolution
4. No functioning commerce nationwide, due to nonexistant commercial credit.

this set of circumstances, whether you, or Louie, or Bill or Beancounter
wish to acknowledge it, COULD happen.....
if we let it happen. And, it is a scenario that could happen beyond our
ability to restrain the process if we wait on it too long. And that set of
circumstances makes for a damned unpleasant life here, no matter how fat
one's wallet or good one's credit rating is. Bleak? Hell, yes, and I do
think we, as a nation can avoid it. But, there certainly are both economic
models and smaller scale real-life examples of just that sort of scenario
unfolding. I hope we aren't doomed by our own stubborness and
shortsightedness.
Tom

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

"MajorOz" wrote in message
...
You get as much deep fried, NON GREASY, corn meal rolled catfish, pork
and beans, nutty cabbage, cornbread, pea salad, potato salad, corn,
green beans.........

getting me to thinking that natural gas may be our nation's ticket to energy
independence!


oz, who invites one and all to come with me some Friday night.

Nah, I've got the Union County Sportsmans Club, on the banks of Penn's
Creek, one of the world's finest trout streams. Similar economic setback for
similar cuisine on weekend buffet nights. But, thanks for the invite....if
I'm ever out that way, the food sounds just fine!

Tom

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
JFK in 61. Economy recovered.

start a war in Vietnam, economy picks up.

Reagan in the 80s. Economy recovered.

well, if you consider a fair-sized recession and a Savings and Loan disaster
that cost the nation a ton of money 'recovered', sure.....

Bush in the 00s. Economy recovered.

yeah, the country is doing swell. Actually, history shows that most times
when you have a radical tax cut, deficits grow by massive amounts.....then
the nation elects a bunch of Democrats to right the ship as best they
can....
Tom

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:14:22 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
No, I haven't seen it.

Either your local economy is wildly different from ours, or you ain't
looking too hard.

Like I said, if you take the money being spent and divide it by the
number of jobs being "created", the answer is mind boggling.

If Obama gave me $300,000, I would buy a truck, get a loan and build
another income property. Think how YOU could influence the economy of
this country if YOU were given $300,000 to spend on it.

Where in the dickens do you come up with $300,000 per person, David?? Here's
how your math works: 300,000
times 300,000,000 US residents equals 90 TRILLION dollars. I will guess that
more stimulus will be needed, but I suspect it will fall a bit short of $90
trillion. Maybe that is what has pushed you view of this package, your own
calculations!g
Tom

Who said anything about U.S. residents????? The bill is costing us
$900 billion, thats 900 with 9 zeros behind it. Right? Are you
following me so far?

Obama says that the bill will create 3 million jobs - that's a 3,
with, what, ummmmm, yeah, a 3 with 6 zeros behind it. Ifn I am
correct, but I may not be, seein' hows I's only got me one of them
there high skool thingies and NO formal education, $900 B divided by 3
M (the number of jobs it will create) = $300,000.00. Now, please,
correct me ifn I is wrong, Tom. I would not want to be puttin' out
any bad info here. The bill is costing $900,000,000,000 and we are
getting 3,000,000 jobs created because of it, so, therefore each job
"created" by the government (which doesn't create jobs, but we will
let that go for now), costs $300,000.00 U.S. of A currency. Let me
prove that math....... 3,000,000 (jobs) X $300,000 = 3x3=9 with
1234567891011 =9 with 11 zeros behind it, which is 900,000,000,000.
Well, by golly, ain't math fun? The gozintas equalled the gozoutas.

And, oh, yeah, these aren't my numbers. They are Obama's numbers. Go
figure.

Like I said, please, PLEASE, give me $300,000.00 U.S. and I will
definitely "create" more than just one job.

Dave














Dave

OT .... Thoughts on ..
 

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:09:44 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
No. Things are going to get worse. But paying $900 billion for 3
million jobs just doesn't make sense, Tom.

But, it does, David. Here's why: by creating/saving 3 million jobs, you
MIGHT boost the public confidence level, and you MIGHT stop that downward
spiral seen in George C's graph. I emphasize the word 'might' because it is
only a best possible guess scenario. I'm just being honest there.

It is costing us $300,000 to "create" ONE job. Do the math, please.


They still haven't gotten
rid of the pork in the bill.

find me one item of 'Pork' that doesn't lead to someone getting or keeping a
job. Otherwise it works as stimulus. Just because it reflects the wishes of
some public official to serve his specific constituency is completely
irrelevant.

Pork, is pork, is pork. Pork is political pay off. We need none of
that right now. NONE.

It is NOT a stimulus package. Obama
himself called it a "spending" package. I agree that a stimulus
package is needed, but not this one. Are you so blind you can not see
all the pork, all the Democrat paybacks, all the crooks stealing our
money. Pass a package, but it had better be a stimulus package and
not a spending one.

As has been stated, very clearly, in simple English, by the President, and
pretty much every damned economist in the nation, I will repeat for you: A
stimulus package IS A SPENDING PACKAGE!!!!!!!

Omama used to call it a spending package, but someone in the press
spoke to him about it and he is now using the term Stimulus Package.

He only gets one chance at this, Tom. He promised EVERYBODY
EVERYTHING, and if this pork loin sandwich doesn't make it, he has no
one but himself (plus Nancy and Harry) to blame for it. If I was a
Senator representing the people of a state, I sure as hell could not
commit myself to this package. It stinks. Even Obama's Sec of
Treasury says they have no plan yet to distribute the money. If that
is so, then why the rush? Why must he have it signed before
Presidents' Day?

Tom, there are few people that love this country more than I do. I
want to see it healthy and safe, but this spending makes no sense at
all. You can not spend your way into prosperity, and "make work" jobs
only help for a very short time. The people that need the help are
the small business men/women who employ most of us. I doubt very much
that there is enough money in this bill to make a hill of beans to
these people.

I am tired of arguing this point. So, eot for me. You may have the
last words.

Dave



yeesh!
Tom