On Thu, 01 May 2008 04:50:17 +0530, John Galt wrote:
>
> "The Trucker" <mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.04.30.21.45.30.13243@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:56:12 +0530, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "The Trucker" <mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2008.04.30.13.41.06.80535@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:33:13 +0530, John Galt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <vjp2.at@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fv9eie$rsa$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's in our interest to use up everybody else's oil before our own.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not in our best interest to lower our standard of living in the
>>>>> process, which is what the result will be.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think it is not in our best interest to lower our
"standard
>>>> of
>>>> living"?
>>>
>>> That's a different discussion, but OK.
>>>
>>> I have been on record for some time in saying that MOST (not all, but
>>> most)
>>> Americans can shed 20% of living standards without really knowing they
>>> did.
>>> Fewer computers, perhaps one car instead of one sitting in the
driveway
>>> 90%
>>> of the time, one or two TVs instead of one in each room, buy high
quality
>>> sneakers without the Nike SWOOSH, and cut out the NFL jerseys and
Coach
>>> handbags. The problem is in the lower class, where a lowering of
>>> standards
>>> of living mean that we may have truly poor people in the US again.
>>> Considering that large welfare programs are simply not in the DNA of
>>> americans of any class, that's the issue that must be considered: the
>>> return
>>> of real hunger to the US population, should standards of living
actually
>>> decline in such fasion.
>>>
>>>
>>> That phrase seems like parrot talk that is simply repeated ad
>>>> vomit. A change in our life styles is not necessarily a reduction in
>>>> "standard of living" when those words are correctly parsed and
examined.
>>>
>>> It's arithmetic, not words, but I suspect you'd broadly agree with my
>>> paragraph above.
>>>
>>>> There are many things that can be done to dramatically decrease our
oil
>>>> consumption that would, in the opinion of many, actually improve our
>>>> true
>>>> standard of living and most certainly our quality of life. People
move
>>>> to
>>>> damned fast anymore. Too much expected instant gratification that
>>>> results
>>>> in very shallow thinking and a lack of any serious contemplation.
Let
>>>> us
>>>> actually PLAN our home life for a week in advance or maybe two like
we
>>>> did
>>>> in the 1950s and 1960s.
>>>
>>> Agreed. My grandmother (who raised me) went to market once a week.
>>> Period.
>>> Now, she had the advantage of a delivery milkman, but your point is
well
>>> taken.
>>>
>>>> We go to the grocery store and we lay in a supply
>>>> of the stuff we need for the next two weeks. This as opposed to no
>>>> planning at all and jumping into the car every day to go get the
stuff
>>>> for
>>>> dinner. And it is the same throughout the system. I remember when
>>>> "Just
>>>> in Time" was all the rage in manufacturing and distribution. That
was
>>>> good in that it forced us to look ahead and project when certain
>>>> commodities would actually be needed and it reduced storage costs.
But
>>>> now we just take all that for granted as being efficient and we
dismiss
>>>> the local warehouses as nothing but sorting centers. Wall-MArt shows
>>>> that
>>>> actual storage on at least a regional basis makes good business
sense.
>>>
>>> Broadly, I don't think we're disagreeing.
>>>>
>>>> The reason this is very im****tant is because of the much more
efficient
>>>> use of rail in moving commodities. Go take a drive on the interstate
>>>> and
>>>> count the trucks. Those trucks are sucking up a gallon of diesel
fuel
>>>> for
>>>> every 5 or 6 miles. I am a long hauler that detests loads of less
than
>>>> 1500 miles but those days should be over because of the fuel costs.
>>>> Manufactures would do well to consolidate and install rails but even
>>>> absent that, lengthy loads should be trucked to a rail yard,
trans****ted
>>>> mostly by rail and delivered to a regional warehouse. The same
>>>> observation holds at regional warehouses in that the delivery could
be
>>>> straight from the rail car. And we don't do this because people have
>>>> become so used to instant gratification and NO PLANNING. We use
Amazon
>>>> and UPS as opposed to a book store. Only half of that is a good
idea.
>>>> It
>>>> takes time to move physical stuff efficiently.
>>>
>>> Granted again. Is your point that the additional costs could be sucked
up
>>> in
>>> Wal-Mart style efficiency rather than actually decreasing free
disposable
>>> income?
>>
>> My point is that decent planning and warehousing can dramatically
reduce
>> fuel consumption and thereby improve the standard of living. The TIME
for
>> delivery is longer and that is why the planning is necessary.
>
> Without objection,
>>
>>>>
>>>> We need to develop our rail infrastructure not so much for passengers
>>>> but
>>>> for freight. We are currently entering a phase of what will be high
>>>> unemployment and a descending standard of living that can be avoided
by
>>>> progressive actions. Why do people drive to work each day? When they
>>>> get
>>>> there many of them sit at a desk and mess with a keyboard. There is
>>>> absolutely no reason why they can't mess with a keyboard in a home
>>>> office.
>>>
>>> I do. 1/2 of my rather enormous cor****ation works from home.
>>
>> But look at the freeways and all those huge buildings. I don't see raw
>> materials being delivered to those structures and finished goods
squirting
>> out. They are info mills and that is all. I know that the ladies like
to
>> dress up (and the men too) and socialize, but it is a ridiculous waste
of
>> time and fuel both.
>
> Well, few cor****ations have (of yet) taken advantages of the
work-from-home
> technology. Even IF (big IF) all cor****ate functions are web-enabled
(the
> first step) there is a management culture that yet needs to change. My
> company is long past the idea that hours worked matter when compared to
> output; most are not. High oil prices, to the extent that they start
> inhibiting the cor****ation from hiring the people they need because
people
> are not inclined to drive downtown, act as a change agent in this
process.
>>
>>>> Video conferencing has reached the point where very good quality can
be
>>>> had for a very low price for the sake of mass meetings and the like.
>>>> There simply is no reason to drive into the city yet we do it. My
>>>> living
>>>> standards will not be adversely effected by a huge increase in
>>>> telecommuting nor will anyone else's.
>>>>
>>>> But this stuff takes leader****p and with Republican conservatives we
>>>> don't
>>>> have that.
>>>
>>> Oh, ****, none of them do. Come off the partisan position. Has ANY
>>> politician on either side of the aisle articulated what you just did?
The
>>> answer is NO.
>>
>> I will say that until the Republicans took over we had a growing
>> technology sector. The increased H1B visas and the, so called, Dot Com
>> bust was Republican crap all the way, just like the housing scam is
>> Republican crap all the way. Is it malicious or is it ignorance and
>> stupidity. We should have been investing in home office telecom instead
of
>> pulling the plug. At the time I commented that the Republicans were
>> trying to increase commuting (OIL PROFITS), and save the value of city
>> real estate all at the same time.
>
> I'll have to disagree. The core of the problem, and well documented, is
that
> US students choose MBA's (higher wage, less effort) instead of
engineering
> (lower wage, difficult curriculum).
Not until H1B's were used to destroyed the wages and wage prospects of the
engineers. The Republicans will always be self fulfilling. By refusing
to pay the wages demanded by technological innovation, by increasing H1B
quotas to address the shortage of skilled engineers the Republicans
CREATED the shortage and an ACTUAL need for even MORE H1B's. Then when
low wages would no longer sup****t the economy we had a bust and even more
demand by the Republicans for even more H1B's.
> Thus, you need HIB's, which were
> increased multiple times during the Clinton years
Show me. The Clinton years were 2. As far as any progressive change,
the "Clinton years" ended in 1995, Thereafter he had to play defense with
the veto pen and was unable to do much of that even. All of the good
economic performance was created by the tax legislation in 1991 and 1993.
> and were a necessary
> facilitator to the dot-com bubble,
Yes!!!!! The Dot com bubble was caused by H1B and capital gains tax
cuts and deregulation.
> which HIT in March of 2000, clearly in
> the Clinton years.
The "Clinton Years" ended in 1995 when The Gingrich Republicans took
control of Congress with the "Contract on America". In 1997 Bill Clinton
was NOT damned fool enough to attempt a veto of the Capital Gains tax
cuts, nor the H1B increases. He had already had his Veto on deregulation
overridden. He was politically weakened by the constant attacks of the
Republicans even though he was NEVER as loathsome to the majority as Bush.
> These are all excellent datapoints to my ongoing contention that we are
> being governed by what is essentially one party,
I do not disagree that we are being governed by an unelected cartel of
lobbyists and rich people.
> consisting of a bipartisan
> den of theives, who pass the baton back and forth every few years to
give
> the sheeple a change to release their emotions in an election process
under
> the mythology that something will really "change."
>
> I mean, for crying out loud. Take a look at the positions of any of the
> candidates. Does anybody really believe that bouncing a tax rate up 3.3%
on
> rich people is "CHANGE"?
Our problem does not lie in the (P)residency. It lies in the Congress
and most im****tantly in the NON representative nature of OUR House of
Representatives. Thwarted telco immunity may well be the first baby steps
of reclaiming some semblance of popular representation and control in our
government. Let us hope.
>>>
>>>> They are not economists. Many are not even finance people.
>>>> Most are simply bean counters. If you assume that the economy will
not
>>>> grow (grow means an increase in aggregate wages boys and girls) then
>>>> the Social Security system is in trouble. If you assume a decent
share
>>>> of productivity gains being realized as wages then we have no problem
>>>> with Social Security. The Republicans are simply the architects of a
>>>> self fulfilling prophecy.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
|
