Welcome to MotoMoz.com!
FAQFAQ    SearchSearch      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in

Economic Twilight Zone

 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
   Motorcycle Help Forums (Home) -> Sportbike RSS
Next:  V-star 650 -- clutch adjustment?  
Author Message
TroytheTroll

External


Since: Aug 15, 2006
Posts: 1262



(Msg. 31) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:45 am
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>motorcycle>sportbike (more info?)

>> Effectively zero unemployment by historical measuring methods. And
>> illegal immigrants do lots of work that is spurned even by unemployed
>> citizens.
>
> But when you look at the work being done, does it strike you as
> sustainable?

Define sustainable? A large part of human life nowadays is supported by
using depletable natural resources. Why? Because they are easy, and just
lying around waiting to be used. As they run out, I'm guessing "more
sustainable" as we transition to a more eco-friendly way of living is just
another step along the way.


>My sense of our current "gross national product" is not
> very complimentary, on the whole. Craftsmen are a dying breed, and
> cheap framing and assembley are the only building techniques in common
> practice.
>

Good thing our main exports aren't just mobile homes?

 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
saddlebag

External


Since: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 253



(Msg. 32) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:13 am
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Oct 8, 10:42 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" wrote:
> On Oct 8, 7:29 pm, saddlebag wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 6:47 pm, "tomor...@erols.com" wrote:
>
> > > One might also want to remember that this FY's federal borrowing was
> > > far less than projected, and far less than average since 1969, and was
> > > the lowest as a percentage of GDP since 9/11.
>
> > Got a reference?
>
> FACT: The federal government registered a budget deficit of $161
> billion for the just-completed fiscal year, the Congressional Budget
> Office estimated. The previous year's deficit was $248 billion. The
> fiscal 2007 deficit was equivalent to 1.2 percent of gross domestic
> product, the lowest since 2001, when the government had a budget
> surplus.
>
> (SOURCE: WASHINGTON POST NEWSPAPER, BUSINESS BRIEFING
> Saturday, October 6, 2007; Page D14)

Now THAT's more like it Timsey.

Interestingly, dollars for the "War on Terror" are still provided
outside the normal budgetary process, through a giant loophole known
as emergency spending.

> FACT: Last year the Congrssional Budget Office predicted a 2007 fiscal
> deficit of $270 billion. In January, 2007, the CBO reduced that
> projection to $172 billion.

No one gives a rat's ass what's "projected," the bottom line is the
bottom line. But if you like projections, here's one from your same
article:

"Republicans have overseen the largest fiscal reversal in American
history - turning a $5.6 trillion ten-year projected surplus into a $2
trillion deficit - and yet the administration continues to advocate
the same policies that helped to create our fiscal mess," said House
Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt Jr., D-South Carolina

> FACT: The budget deficit now stands at about 1.4 percent of the
> nation's GDP, well below the 2.3 percent that's been the norm since
> 1970

Basing anything against the GDP is bogus. GDP IS NOT a measurement of
PRODUCTION. It is a measurement of production and service.
Therefore, the gov't could print money all night and day and we could
have an economy comprised completely of Walmart workers doing nothing
but selling other Walmart workers Chinese goods, and being the good
CONSUMERS we Americans are, we could still keep the GDP soaring.
Doesn't mean we still aren't hemmoraging our national treasure.

Here's the stat you want to keep an eye on:

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

You see Timsey, this is a measure of the real money that leaves our
collective pocket and doesn't come back. Not the GDP nonsense of
capturing the amount of money we shuffle around between our own pants
pockets.

As we borrow and print and our dollar becomes less and less valuable.
This should have the benefit of beginning to close this deficit over
time. Shame we can't do it just by being a PRODUCER of quality stuff
that people around the world demand.

> > > Otoh, it's far more FUN to play the role of Chicken Little on usenet.
> > You do it well.
>
> FACT: I am not the one calling the longest peacetime expansion of the
> economy

If I run up my credit card I can expand the amount of junk in my
garage too. Doesn't mean I earned it.

> new records for the stock market

And new record lows for the dollar too!

> growing federal tax receipts

With a growing gubament work force we can generate more revenue.
Problem is, we have to turn around and pay it back to them, then pay
the Chinese for all our things.

> post-world war II record low inflation

Yeah, if you exclude, energy, housing, healthcare, and education
prolly so.

> an "economic twilight zone."

Because that is precisely what it is.

> I am not the one predicting a third world economy for the United States.

Because you buy into the phony stats the gubament wants to sell you.
Dig a little deeper.

> I am not the one decrying the loss of every single nut and bolt screwing job in the U.S.
> economy.

Nor did I. I just pointed out the FACTS of the media ballyhooed
"record" jobs report.

> I am the one presenting well researched FACTs to counteract
> such hysterical nonsense.

I appreciate that. It's a good change for you.

> > > Meanwhile, my house is almost paid for, it's worth six times what I
> > > paid for it 26 years ago
> > Unfortunately, the dollar is probably worth seven times less.
>
> FACT: The dollars I bought my house with in 1981 would be worth $2.26
> each today; not $7.00.
>
> SOURCE: Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation Calculator
>
> FACT: That means, that AFTER adjusting for inflation, my house has
> appreciated at an average of 4.15% each year I've lived in it.
>
> SOURCE: Simple math.

But at the end of the day, if you sold it could you buy something
equivalent any cheaper? Housing has inflated everywhere. If your
house still cost what it did in 1981 and everyone else's did too
nothing would be any different for you. But to the young family whose
bread winner was making $7/hr in 1981 and is now making $10/hr, that
house will require a far bigger chunk of his family's income. Get it?

BTW, the fact that your crib has inflated so rapidly doesn't exactly
bode well for your "lowest inflation in history" argument.

> > > Let the good times roll, and the Chicken Little's toll!
> > I understand that to you, pointing out FACTS that don't fit your
> > blissfully ignorant view of the world is unnerving.
>
> You are the one who is without facts and you are the one who has
> proven yourself ignorant.

My OP was nothing but facts. And the one's I've just given you should
give you a little more to ponder.

 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
Vaughn

External


Since: Aug 23, 2007
Posts: 90



(Msg. 33) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:45 am
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Oct 8, 8:49 pm, BrianNZ wrote:
> Albrecht via MotorcycleKB.com wrote:
> > BrianNZ wrote:
>
> >> ......or the Americans will move to Canada and Mexico and leave the mess
> >> the US is becoming (national debt etc........
>
> > Canada is pickier than the US about who they will let in, and it doesn't
> > share a border with Mexico.
>
> They let in a couple of my mates, so they can't be that picky... Smile
>
>
>
> > 90% of all Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border and share in the
> > benefits of the US economy.
>
> Silly, but not stupid, Eh!?
>
>
>
> > Mexico will not allow Americans to work there or own property along the ocean.
>
> So why do you allow Mexicans to work in America? Don't you have any
> unemployed to do the jobs they do?
>
>
>
> > Did New Orleans ever get
> >> re-built?) for the 'illegals' to sort out?.....
>
> > Parts of New Orleans will never be rebuilt. Many African Americans who made
> > New Orleans a "chocolate city" can never go home.
>
> > "Hard working" illegal aliens went there and worked under the table to to
> > repairs on the salvageable parts of the city.
>
> (shaking head) Thats weird.....shouldn't it have been the 'chocolate
> city' homies doing the clean up, rather than Mexicans?
>
> Where did all the 'African Americans' go? They must be living
> somewhere..........
>
>
>
> >> then, over time, the
> >> 'illegals' will follow the money and move back to Mexico to full peasant
> >> status?
>
> > Some Mexicans talk about making a lot of money and going home and building a
> > house for their family and starting a business. But life here is so much
> > better.
> > They can get a bank account, and they can buy a car on easy terms and live so
> > much better than they could ever live "over there", they will never go back.
>
> Lots of Kiwi's move to Aussie for more $$ and never come back. Home is
> where the money is.....?
>
> Luckily, I prefer lifestyle over money.......My younger bro has a half
> million dollar house in Aussie while I live in a run down 90 year old
> villa......each to their own i suppose.

Amen to that.

Money is only one part of the equation called freedom.

Lots of my "mates" moved to bigger cities in pursuit of the bigger
checks. I stayed settled and put down roots for a quality,
sustainable, and enjoyable lifestyle.

I'd rather be riding on a sunny afternoon than sitting out a ten hour
day in an office with windows that don't open.
 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
Vaughn

External


Since: Aug 23, 2007
Posts: 90



(Msg. 34) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:45 am
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Oct 9, 12:39 am, "TroytheTroll" wrote:
> >> Effectively zero unemployment by historical measuring methods. And
> >> illegal immigrants do lots of work that is spurned even by unemployed
> >> citizens.
>
> > But when you look at the work being done, does it strike you as
> > sustainable?
>
> Define sustainable?

= Built with some quality to last.

(i.e. I live in a 114 year old house, which I've restored to modern
standards. It was framed to last, with old growth timber. New
construction is generally shoddy, and is far less likely to last even
100 years. Modern electronics and "planned obsolescence" are another
good example.)


There's a karmic link to sustainability in an ecological sense, too.
Choices (to consume x) always have consequence (like running out of x
sooner), but I think there's a karmic debt growing as well. And
there'll be big changes that come in stride.

But humans will adapt, that's what we do best.




A large part of human life nowadays is supported by
> using depletable natural resources. Why? Because they are easy, and just
> lying around waiting to be used. As they run out, I'm guessing "more
> sustainable" as we transition to a more eco-friendly way of living is just
> another step along the way.
>
> >My sense of our current "gross national product" is not
> > very complimentary, on the whole. Craftsmen are a dying breed, and
> > cheap framing and assembley are the only building techniques in common
> > practice.
>
> Good thing our main exports aren't just mobile homes?
 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
tomorrow

External


Since: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 394



(Msg. 35) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:38 am
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Oct 9, 12:10 am, John Smith wrote:
> tomor....TakeThisOut@erols.com wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > Effectively zero unemployment by historical measuring methods. And
> > illegal immigrants do lots of work that is spurned even by unemployed
> > citizens.
>
> Yeah, and all the people without medical insurance are that way because
> they like it ...
>
> When I was in high school, I had a little job in a shell gas
> station--$1.65 p/hr--I think that was minimum wage back then, or around
> there. Now as I see it, the cost of EVERYTHING is about 10 times what
> it was back then. You take that $1.65 p/hr * 10 = $16.50 p/hr--that is
> about what minimum wage should be.
>
> Ain't too difficult to figure--people have been screwed!

How much do you think a haircut, a carwash, getting your lawn mowed, a
cheeseburger, a bag of groceries, etc. would go up if the government
mandated that all employers pay all their employees a minimum of
$16.50 per hour? How many small businesses would close? What do
you think the unemployment rate would be then? Why should the
government set the going rate for labor at the bottom of the wage
pool? Shouldn't the government also mandate how much YOUR labor is
worth for the job YOU do? I mean, they have a better idea what you're
worth to the U.S. economy than you and your employer, right? Does
your employer offer a 35-hour workweek? Why not? It's inhumane in
this day and age to expect people to work 40 or more hours a week!
You are getting screwed!
 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
TroytheTroll

External


Since: Aug 15, 2006
Posts: 1262



(Msg. 36) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:13 am
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

>> >> Effectively zero unemployment by historical measuring methods. And
>> >> illegal immigrants do lots of work that is spurned even by unemployed
>> >> citizens.
>>
>> > But when you look at the work being done, does it strike you as
>> > sustainable?
>>
>> Define sustainable?
>
> = Built with some quality to last.
>

Well thats not particularly a good definition. My chinese made, walmart sold
underwear meets this criteria.


> (i.e. I live in a 114 year old house, which I've restored to modern
> standards. It was framed to last, with old growth timber. New
> construction is generally shoddy, and is far less likely to last even
> 100 years. Modern electronics and "planned obsolescence" are another
> good example.)

New construction is sorta shoddy, but its because people will still buy it.
And just because its shoddy compared to 100 year old techniques, it still
lasts quite a long time. Long time meaning, I dunno, most houses I've lived
in built in the 60's seem pretty good. And I didn't realize that planned
obsolescence was a defining characteristic of modern electronics....my last
TV went from 1987 to 2006 before it broke. Is 19 years consisted a bad
lifespan for TV's?

>
>
> There's a karmic link to sustainability in an ecological sense, too.
> Choices (to consume x) always have consequence (like running out of x
> sooner), but I think there's a karmic debt growing as well. And
> there'll be big changes that come in stride.
>
> But humans will adapt, that's what we do best.
>

Thats what I've always figured too.
 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
TroytheTroll

External


Since: Aug 15, 2006
Posts: 1262



(Msg. 37) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:55 am
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

> But to the young family whose
> bread winner was making $7/hr in 1981 and is now making $10/hr, that
> house will require a far bigger chunk of his family's income. Get it?

Wanna bet a $7/hour job isn't paid $10/hour today?

In 1986 I was making $7.50/hour fresh out of college. Am I making $10/hour
today? Nope. I was a petroleum engineer in both
circumstances.....gee.....WHAT HAPPENED!!!

Come on saddle, you can do better than manufacturing examples this poor.


>
> BTW, the fact that your crib has inflated so rapidly doesn't exactly
> bode well for your "lowest inflation in history" argument.
>

4%/year appreciation in real estate doesn't sound bad at all. You consider
this "so rapidly" when its not even as decent as the t-bills I invest in
nowadays?


>> You are the one who is without facts and you are the one who has
>> proven yourself ignorant.
>
> My OP was nothing but facts. And the one's I've just given you should
> give you a little more to ponder.

Yeah...like $7/hour jobs appreciating to only $10/hour after 25 years? Good
FACT saddle....right....
 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
tomorrow

External


Since: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 394



(Msg. 38) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:41 pm
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Oct 9, 12:54 pm, Vaughn wrote:
> On Oct 9, 8:13 am, "TroytheTroll" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> >> Effectively zero unemployment by historical measuring methods. And
> > >> >> illegal immigrants do lots of work that is spurned even by unemployed
> > >> >> citizens.
>
> > >> > But when you look at the work being done, does it strike you as
> > >> > sustainable?
>
> > >> Define sustainable?
>
> > > = Built with some quality to last.
>
> > Well thats not particularly a good definition. My chinese made, walmart sold
> > underwear meets this criteria.
>
> > > (i.e. I live in a 114 year old house, which I've restored to modern
> > > standards. It was framed to last, with old growth timber. New
> > > construction is generally shoddy, and is far less likely to last even
> > > 100 years. Modern electronics and "planned obsolescence" are another
> > > good example.)
>
> > New construction is sorta shoddy, but its because people will still buy it.
> > And just because its shoddy compared to 100 year old techniques, it still
> > lasts quite a long time. Long time meaning, I dunno, most houses I've lived
> > in built in the 60's seem pretty good. And I didn't realize that planned
> > obsolescence was a defining characteristic of modern electronics....my last
> > TV went from 1987 to 2006 before it broke. Is 19 years consisted a bad
> > lifespan for TV's?
>
> Here's a better definition of "sustainability" with an ethical/
> ecological thrust:
>
> One of the most oft-cited definitions of sustainability, and possibly
> the one that will survive for posterity, is the one created by the
> Brundtland Commission, led by the former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro
> Harlem Brundtland. The Commission defined sustainable development as
> development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising
> the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."[1] The
> Bruntland definition thus implicitly argues for the rights of future
> generations to raw materials and vital ecosystem services to be taken
> into account in global decision making, and is in the category of
> philosphical statements sometimes called "extension theories," by
> which certain rights are extended to groups currently excluded from
> enjoyment of those rights.
>
> But at the very least, I would generally consider not only the
> production, but also the design. (as well as transportation and
> distribution paradigms.)
>
> Your 1987 TV was one of the last of the good ones, by my estimation.
> When you look at amps, dvd players, and other consumer electronics,
> three-five years is a general life expectency.
>
> And the thing that really annoys me about that is when one simple
> circuit board goes out on a dvd player, for example, the whole thing
> goes off to the landfill and a new one is purchased - using up the
> same limited resources again and again. At this pace and with this
> method of production in the global economy, when your children reach
> middle age their costs for a simple hard drive, car, or motorcycle
> will likely be far greater because there is so much less petroleum,
> metal, and production costs are far higher to protect our devastated
> environment.
>
> Thus, our lifestyle and consumption is not sustainable because "market
> driven forces" are driving us to do very wasteful things to be
> competetive.
>
> Why not build a dvd player with replaceable parts? Eli Whitney nailed
> the concept of interchangeable parts in the 18th century, but we are
> back to using disposible equipment while are resources are running
> thin.

The pace of technological progess has rendered that model itself
unsustainable. You can build a dvd player with replaceable parts, but
by the time the thing breaks and needs a part, none of the new dvd
players being made will use those parts, and there is no economic
incentive to build, ship, and store obsolete replacement parts for
obsolete consumer goods, parts for which there is no installation
labor supply, anyway.

Every year a larger percentage of the matierials used to build
consumer good are recycled. As the cost of recycled material goes
down and the cost of raw materials (and obtaining them) inevitably
goes up, the use of raw materials will go down (perhaps not in
absolute terms, as the population grows and third world economies are
lifted up, but in PER ITEM terms) and this "problem" will go away.

It's like the projected zillions of tons of future horse manure in NYC
in the 1890's. We can't solve all the projected gargantuan problems
facing future generations, and even if we could, it would be useless
to try, since there is no assurance that the problems will actually
materialize as projected.
 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
Vaughn

External


Since: Aug 23, 2007
Posts: 90



(Msg. 39) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Oct 9, 8:13 am, "TroytheTroll" wrote:
> >> >> Effectively zero unemployment by historical measuring methods. And
> >> >> illegal immigrants do lots of work that is spurned even by unemployed
> >> >> citizens.
>
> >> > But when you look at the work being done, does it strike you as
> >> > sustainable?
>
> >> Define sustainable?
>
> > = Built with some quality to last.
>
> Well thats not particularly a good definition. My chinese made, walmart sold
> underwear meets this criteria.
>
> > (i.e. I live in a 114 year old house, which I've restored to modern
> > standards. It was framed to last, with old growth timber. New
> > construction is generally shoddy, and is far less likely to last even
> > 100 years. Modern electronics and "planned obsolescence" are another
> > good example.)
>
> New construction is sorta shoddy, but its because people will still buy it.
> And just because its shoddy compared to 100 year old techniques, it still
> lasts quite a long time. Long time meaning, I dunno, most houses I've lived
> in built in the 60's seem pretty good. And I didn't realize that planned
> obsolescence was a defining characteristic of modern electronics....my last
> TV went from 1987 to 2006 before it broke. Is 19 years consisted a bad
> lifespan for TV's?
>

Here's a better definition of "sustainability" with an ethical/
ecological thrust:

One of the most oft-cited definitions of sustainability, and possibly
the one that will survive for posterity, is the one created by the
Brundtland Commission, led by the former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro
Harlem Brundtland. The Commission defined sustainable development as
development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."[1] The
Bruntland definition thus implicitly argues for the rights of future
generations to raw materials and vital ecosystem services to be taken
into account in global decision making, and is in the category of
philosphical statements sometimes called "extension theories," by
which certain rights are extended to groups currently excluded from
enjoyment of those rights.



But at the very least, I would generally consider not only the
production, but also the design. (as well as transportation and
distribution paradigms.)

Your 1987 TV was one of the last of the good ones, by my estimation.
When you look at amps, dvd players, and other consumer electronics,
three-five years is a general life expectency.

And the thing that really annoys me about that is when one simple
circuit board goes out on a dvd player, for example, the whole thing
goes off to the landfill and a new one is purchased - using up the
same limited resources again and again. At this pace and with this
method of production in the global economy, when your children reach
middle age their costs for a simple hard drive, car, or motorcycle
will likely be far greater because there is so much less petroleum,
metal, and production costs are far higher to protect our devastated
environment.

Thus, our lifestyle and consumption is not sustainable because "market
driven forces" are driving us to do very wasteful things to be
competetive.

Why not build a dvd player with replaceable parts? Eli Whitney nailed
the concept of interchangeable parts in the 18th century, but we are
back to using disposible equipment while are resources are running
thin.
 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
saddlebag

External


Since: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 253



(Msg. 40) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:42 pm
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Oct 9, 9:55 am, "TroytheTroll" wrote:
> > But to the young family whose
> > bread winner was making $7/hr in 1981 and is now making $10/hr, that
> > house will require a far bigger chunk of his family's income. Get it?
>
> Wanna bet a $7/hour job isn't paid $10/hour today?

No you dope. You and Timsey both have the same problem. You think
you're personal situation applies to the entire country. To answer
your first question yes. A grocery store cashier was making ~ $7/hr
in 1981. I made ~$4/hr bagging groceries and sorting bottles that
year. Wanna stop by Piggly Wiggly and see what the checkout girls are
making today?

Guess what knucklehead, they still have to live somewhere.

P.S. There are a lot more cashier jobs today than there was in 1981
and a lot fewer machinist careers.
 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
tomorrow

External


Since: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 394



(Msg. 41) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Oct 9, 6:54 pm, "Dave" wrote:

> "saddlebag" wrote:

> > You people who are contemplating a bike had better get on with it,
> > while our money is still accepted on the world market.

> How long can this go on? Dare I ask?

Who cares? As long as you can make your own loin cloth, and can kill,
butcher, smoke and later eat your slower, fatter, more sedentary
neighbor(s) in the coming hard times (say, 18 months from now), you'll
be fine.

Trust me.
 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
Albrecht via MotorcycleKB

External


Since: Jun 07, 2007
Posts: 521



(Msg. 42) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Vaughn wrote:

>I was being totally sarcastic, responding to Tim's idea of a federal
>policy currently solving a problem and doing something right for
>Mexican labor.

Your unintentional use of the double negative in your previous message was
confusing.

>I imagine your forefathers on a porch pointing a finger with certainty and verve before telling a
>story well.

I imagine them sailing dragon ships and swinging axes and brothers killing
each other for the right to be king of Sweden or Scotland.

>This is a particularly interesting distinction. The day when honor
>died at the sword (or axe!) of law and reason.

What is "honor"? Skalds and popular historians honor powerful jarls and kings
with panegyric.

My knightly ancestor went into Greyfriars after Robert the Bruce stabbed John
Comyn and made sure that the Red Comyn was dead.

My 14 great grandfather's honor lives on, nobody took away his lands or title.


Robert the Bruce became king of Scotland. Most Scots don't care about him
being excommunuicated for murdering somebody in a church sanctuary.

77 Cattle die, kindred die,
Every man is mortal:
But I know one thing that never dies,
The glory of the great dead ---The Sayings of Har

>Count on whitey to dish that one out.

Don't blame the white Americans for what happened to the evil Spaniards. Waht
goes around comes around.

The Spanish hidalgos who lost their land grants in the Mexican Cession of
1848 were white too, but they were proud of their illiteracy. The hidalgos
dared not be seen reading anything which might be thought of as a heretical
text, they might be arrested and tried for heresy by the Inquisition.

The ancestors of the hidalgos had bought their titles from Felipe II, king of
Spain for the equivalent of $900. The king used the money from gold looted
from the New World and the Phillipines to arm Flemish mercenaries to fight
the Protestant Reformation. Problem with being a petty noble was that they
could no longer work at any trade, so they usually left Spain to seek their
fortune in the New World.

The hidalgos joined bands of freebooters like the Cortez piracy of Mexico, or
they stayed loyal to the king os Spain and received outright land grants or
limited encomiendas that allowed them to enslave the native population and
work them to death.

The hidalgos started out in Spain without land or title or honor and their
careers ended in the southwest, without land, title, or honor.

>B a m ! And in steps the bank.

The banks really didn't become a problem in America until a central bank was
established after the Civil War. One of my relatives was a famous American
poet, though he is not as well knowns as, say, Nathaniel Hawthorne. My poet
relative's day job was as a banker, but he retired from that business when
the
central bank was established. He just didn't want to learn the new rules of
aggressive banking.

The original American dream was religious freedom and financial independence.
My 8-great grandfather and his three brothers left England because of the
heavy taxes levied upon them by James I, House of Stuart. They had a
successful textile business in England, but the taxes were just too high.

So they came to Massachusetts with Governor Endicott and set up the
Massachusetts Bay Colony. They obtained land from the Indians who were glad
they had arrived, since they were afraid of hostile tribes. They surveyed the
land and they were admitted to the Massachusetts Bay Colony as Free Men,
owing nobody for their transportation.

But, they didn't like the religious rigidity and they moved down to Rhode
Island following Roger Williams and set up a huge industrial organization
there. Problem was that the international bankers cut off their credit during
the Panic of 1873 and the resulting bankruptcy was the biggest in American
history. It would be like Microsoft going bankrupt.

Nowadays, the great grandchildren of immigrants are bankers and lawyers and
Madison Avenue ad men and they are now telling Americans that the "American
Dream" is to be in debt up to your ears for your whole life, owing out
million$$$
for your mass-produced house, car, electronic entertainment center, and all
those things that my ancestors never dreamed of.

And, if Americans are "too lazy" to work and earn the money to keep the
payments flowing to the new Masters of the Universe, they will be perfectly
happy to lend the money to the illegal alien Mexicans, who can be seen
driving
nicer cars than the "lazy" whites.

>Yup. Those whites, and their friends, have bent the rules all along
>the way, too.

What are nations for, if the people of that nation are not all of the same
ethnicity? Are nations supposed to be managerial states, protecting the
interest of the capitalists and helping them exploit the workers of a
pluralist society?

Why would a white youth want to enlist in the military to defend a managerial
state. Why would they want to fight to defend Halliburton?
>
>> The white working class was successful in excluding the Chinese, forbiding
>> them from ever becoming citizens, and even forbidding Chinese laborers from
>> marrying.
>
>Wow, I didn't know that one. Not surprised, though....

John Steinbeck described a mysterious suicide in one of his short stories. It
seems that a young white woman was pregnant with a Chinese laborer's baby, so
she ended it all. Steinbeck was a socialist muckraker who was hated by
California's Republican landowners for telling the truth about what was going
on.

After Steinbeck's horrific "Grapes of Wrath" was published, Eleanor Roosevelt
came to the San Joaquin valley to see the plight of the poor okies for
herself.
They were living in shantytowns called "Hoovervilles".

Nowadays, Mexicans and homeless whites live in shantytowns in the bushes by
the river.

I was talking to a homeless crippled white woman before Christmas about two
years ago. She was in her 50's. She was begging for money to buy
a tent so she could live under a bridge. I suspected that she might want the
money to buy booze, so I didn't give her any.

She was found dead under the bridge about two weeks later.

Jack London was another socialist, writing about social inequalities in
California around the end of the 19th century, but he is best remembered for
his stories about dogs.

>How convenient!
>I bet the consulate cashed out early.

The Mexican consulate set up the Comision Honorifica de Mexicana Americana.
It is now a corporation that only helps Mexicans.

>Meanwhile, stateside, cheap mexican labor continues to build
>McMansions all throughout the distant suburbs. They generally do
>mediocre labor on the cheap while living in the unfinished structures
>- pissing in the walls before installing sheetrock.

About 50% of all sheetrock work is done by Mexicans, busting their ass to do
a job that "lazy whites" won't do, at least not for $10 an hour. That's hard
work, hanging sheetrock.
>
>Ironically, this involves destroying good farmland and eroding the
>sustainability of the American lifestyle.

The ultimate problem facing California is water. California gets its water
from snowmelt, whether it's snow that fell on the Sierra Nevada, the Cascades,
or the Rockies.

It takes ten years to remove land from agricultural use, but the ag land is
now worth $100K an acre. Housing developers can build 8 house on an acre, and
the mortgage lenders can easily make a million $$$ from that land.

But, the Mexicans arriving here to take menial jobs away from "lazy whites"
also need water for bathing and washing dishes and flushing their toilets.
The farmers need that water to irrigate their crops.

The developer who started Sun City in Phoenix now wants to build a retirement
community on the way to Sequoia National Park. The county supervisors are
fighting this "Boston Ranch" development. Part of Boston Ranch is in a
pristine valley where there is about one steer grazing on every ten acres and
California condors and golden eagles can be seen soaring high above.

If there is no water to develop Boston Ranch into an agrobusiness, there is
also no water to build a luxury retirement community there.

>Maybe, and the land will change drastically as a result. Making it
>less comfortable for all persons, and more dangerous as Barrio/Gangsta
>hardened youth contemplate a tribal war.

Local Mexican "chicanos", grandchildren of illegal aliens who never
naturalized, are saying there will be a gang war here in the valley if the
border jumpers keep coming here and competing with them for jobs.

The new arrivals play soccer and do a lot of things that the "chicanos" call
"naco", that being evidence that the new illegal alien is a sort of
untouchable.

--
Message posted via http://www.motorcyclekb.com
 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
saddlebag

External


Since: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 253



(Msg. 43) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Oct 9, 6:54 pm, "Dave" wrote:
> "saddlebag" wrote in message
>
>
>
> > You people who are contemplating a bike had better get on with it,
> > while our money is still accepted on the world market.
>
> I've never really understood the "big picture" economics of the US Economy.
> Since before passage of the Graham-Rudman Act (in, I belive 1973 or so)
> which MANDATED that the Federal Government work to a balanced budget (and
> which they have summarily ignored ever since), the US has spent more than it
> takes in. Every year the gap gets bigger. In 1980 when Ronald Reagan took
> office the US financed approximately 90% of it's debt domestically. By the
> time he left eight years later we were borrowing 90% from the Germans and
> Japanese. Now we'll take it from whomever will give it. Haven't the most
> enlightened financial minds on the planet realized that, based on our track
> record, the U.S. JUST AIN'T GONNA EVER EVER EVER pay back that principal? I
> mean, come on, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it
> would take hundreds of years to pay back trillions of dollars... and yet,
> and yet, they keep lending money to us.

As Bin Laden was so keenly aware...the chickenhawks would overreact
and he could win without ever lifting another finger.

Sure China is lending us money for nothing now while THEY become a
fully self sufficient nation and we become dependent poodle groomers.
But once they've reached a level at which they can comfortably operate
without the hedonistic west, they will begin to demand a higher return
on their investments. Our interest rates will rise until the gov't
can't tax us enough and it will start selling off pieces of the US to
the highest bidder...or we will go to war with a billion sexually
repressed males. Katie bar the door!
 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
John Smith

External


Since: Oct 07, 2007
Posts: 9



(Msg. 44) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:12 pm
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

TroytheTroll wrote:

> ...
> Don't like capitalism, try socialism or communism. Just don't expect
> most Americans to agree with you that such systems are any good.

Huh?

In a village, all the men go hunting, all the women take care of the
chores--everyone gets together to build a new couple a new home, etc.

It ain't socialism, anymore than public water/sewer is communism. It is
the people taking care of what the people need.

Housing, medical, clothing, food, transportation (maybe one or two more
I am missing) should be tax free and free from capitalistic
manipulations (or, free from the rich ruling the peasants by
manufacturing shortages and controlling supply and demand.)

The rest of the world is up for grabs. My people before me, right up
till me myself, have all worked to free man from his lot of strife
suffering and control and to create explorers, writers, poets, artists, etc.

We damn well didn't work so a relatively few can control all the natural
resources and live in splendor while managing a peasant class!

The truth is, some people are only happy if they are able to subject
others to their control. Indeed, their very feeling of worth comes from
being able to suffer others with their wishes ... we need so something
with those poor mental defectives.

Regards,
JS
 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
tomorrow

External


Since: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 394



(Msg. 45) Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:15 pm
Post subject: Re: Economic Twilight Zone [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Oct 9, 7:56 pm, saddlebag wrote:

> Sure China is lending us money for nothing now while THEY become a
> fully self sufficient nation and we become dependent poodle groomers.
> But once they've reached a level at which they can comfortably operate
> without the hedonistic west, they will begin to demand a higher return
> on their investments. Our interest rates will rise until the gov't
> can't tax us enough and it will start selling off pieces of the US to
> the highest bidder...

Kind of like that real estate mess in the 80's when the Japanese
invested all THEIR U.S. dollars in U.S. real estate, then when the
prices crashed, they repossessed all that American property and took
it back with them to Japan and made the home islands 30x as big....
no, wait a minute, that was the PREDICTED end of western civilization
as we know it... not the REAL one that is coming in 18 months because
we were so stupid as to replace the Klinton Kabal with the Bush
Regime.

Never Mind.
 >> Stay informed about: Economic Twilight Zone 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
Related Topics:
I hate Texas - More specifically, I hate rain. At 9 I sat down to watch Pay Per Squid on DirecTV. As soon as the disclaimer saying not to do any of the junk they were about to show me was over it started POURING rain and the satellite went out. Naturally. It just came....

Help - I'm hoping maybe somebody can help me, I've got a 86 zx600 basket case that I put together last fall. The bike ran pretty good but make sure everything was set-up right (it was in boxes for 7 or 8 years) I took it to the local bike shop and had the..

NBA player bins it. - Former Duke star and current Chicago point guard bought himself a sportbike last week and now they are reporting his career is in jeopardy after a crash. Hopefully they are making it out worse than it sounds. Sounds like it was an R1 or R6 since one..

BIKE CLUBS IN SO. CALIFORNIA? - Anyone know of riding clubs within 50 miles of Riverside/San Bernardino area? Looking for a group to ride with. Please email me at.............thunder@pathlink.com Fred

Tire Question - I was riding tonight on my Kawa zx-12 and the bike felt loose. At first I thought the frame was broken but when I stopped I noticed the tire was flat. I figure I ran like this for approx 2 miles. Turns out it's a slow leak. My question is, should I get....
   Motorcycle Help Forums (Home) -> Sportbike All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 3 of 6

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum

Warning: fopen(/home/adsense_reject.txt) [function.fopen]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/autoforu/public_html/Giga/GigaFunctions.php on line 1142

Warning: fwrite(): supplied argument is not a valid stream resource in /home/autoforu/public_html/Giga/GigaFunctions.php on line 1143

Warning: fclose(): supplied argument is not a valid stream resource in /home/autoforu/public_html/Giga/GigaFunctions.php on line 1144



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]