"The Trucker" <mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05.02.04.30.49.9073@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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".
So the "Bush Years" ended in 2006, and we can now blame the Democrats?
:-)
(I doubt you'll agree)
I'm getting your position here. The only time it's the Democrats fault is
if
they have both Houses and the Presidency. Otherwise, the nefarious
influence
of the GOP causes the problem. (And, I suspect if the Democrats have a
three-fer, and things don't improve, the cor****ate lobbyists will be at
fault.)
I have little patience for this level of partisan****p, so I'll just leave
it
there.
JG
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
>
|
