conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Which type of volatile RAM has the least duration of data remanencewhen power-offed?
Next: Analog Circuits (world class designs) B. Pease
From: Bill Sloman on 15 May 2010 10:46 On May 15, 12:50 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:07:07 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On May 14, 10:42 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:53:22 +0100, Martin Brown > > >> <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> >On 14/05/2010 16:06, John Larkin wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:31:49 +0100, Martin Brown > >> >> <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >> >>> Engels saw first hand what greedy industrialists were doing to their > >> >>> workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. Boiler explosions were > >> >>> commonplace up until the Vulcan insurers made a stand and insisted on > >> >>> proper boiler safety inspections. And in cases of tampering with safety > >> >>> relief valves they would not pay out. > > >> >[snip] > > >> >>> It makes reasonable sense to pay your workers a living wage for the work > >> >>> that they do rather than pay them less than they can sensibly live on. > >> >>> Ford was about the first in the USA to actually do this. > > >> >> It only makes sense if the money comes from somewhere. If all the > >> >> employers arbitrarily doubled wages, inflation would take it all away > > >> >We are talking here of industrialised manufacture that was possibly two > >> >or more orders of magnitude more productive. All the profits went to the > >> >mill owners and their workers were left to starve on a subsistance level > >> >of pay because it was marginally better than being out of work. > > >> That effect was transient. The first mill owners could indeed hire > >> unemployed labor cheap. > > >At the time, the mechanisation of agriculture was decreasing the > >demand for agricultural labourers in the country, so they moved into > >the cities to find work. > > >> As other mill owners got into the act, they > >> had to compete for labor whether they were nice people or not. > > >They didn't have to compete; they could agree to divide up the > >labourers availalble and pay them the same subsistence rate. Cartels > >and trusts formalised the process by which evil factory owners > >conspired to rip off their employees, and employers who upset the > >apple-cart by offering higher pay could sudenely find that they > >couldn't buy the feed-stock from which their products were > >constructed. Why do you think that US first introduced anti-trust > >legislation in 1887? > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law > > >> The > >> laborers benefitted on the other side as food, clothing, building > >> materials, all sorts of stuff, got cheaper because productivity and > >> transportation were indeed orders of magnitude improved by new > >> technology. > > >If the factory owners didn't reduce wages to reflect the new, lower, > >cost of living ... > > >> Productivity is the ultimate benevolence. Technology pushes > >> productivity. > > >Perfectly true. But it doesn't do a thing to ensure that the benefits > >of increased productivity are equally shared between capital and > >labour. > > Competition does that, and anti-trust laws make companies compete. > Unfortunately, no laws make unions compete. So business reacts > logically, by leaving the country or going out of business. > > But what would you know about productivity? More than you do, obviously. The Germans have strong trade unions, well-protected by law, and German companies are neither out-sourcing nor going out of business. You seem to be getting your ideas about "productivity" from the usual right-wing propaganda mills, filled in by your ideosyncratic experience in the company you run. My own grasp of the subject goes back to my childhood, when I grew up in an idnustrial environment - or as industrial an environment as Tasmania offers, since my father worked as research manager at the local paper mill, where he invented and patented "counter-current cooking" - and I got to hear a lot about trade union activity from a very early age. Once I'd done my stint in academia, I spent the rest of my career working in various aspects of manufacturing industry, mostly in the UK, when trade union membership was more the rule than the exception. I got to see productivity in action in a number of different firms, and got the clear impression that management initiative (usually it's absence) was crucial to a firm's productivity, or the lack of it. The trade unions would have liked management to do better, but their opinions were not taken seriously. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Joerg on 15 May 2010 10:51 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>>> I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts >>>>>>>> business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because >>>>>>>> it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No >>>>>>>> accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no >>>>>>>> quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a >>>>>>>> person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be >>>>>>>> jealous of his wealth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved >>>>>>> for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The >>>>>>> money they saved _has_ already been taxed. >>>>>> Simple fix: don't tax income. >>>>>> >>>>> Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but >>>>> not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat >>>>> VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair >>>>> at all. >>>> As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic >>>> medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales >>>> tax on it. >>> The point is that that money has already been taxed. It shouldn't matter if >>> it is used to buy a yacht. Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust >>> Roth IRAs). >> As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then >> things are only taxed once. > > You're missing the point. Those millions of people who have saved all their > lives will be taxed a second time. They've *already* been taxed on that > money. Exactamente! -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: John Larkin on 15 May 2010 11:40 On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:46:30 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On May 15, 12:50�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:07:07 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On May 14, 10:42�pm, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:53:22 +0100, Martin Brown >> >> >> <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >On 14/05/2010 16:06, John Larkin wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:31:49 +0100, Martin Brown >> >> >> <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> �wrote: >> >> >> >>> Engels saw first hand what greedy industrialists were doing to their >> >> >>> workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. Boiler explosions were >> >> >>> commonplace up until the Vulcan insurers made a stand and insisted on >> >> >>> proper boiler safety inspections. And in cases of tampering with safety >> >> >>> relief valves they would not pay out. >> >> >> >[snip] >> >> >> >>> It makes reasonable sense to pay your workers a living wage for the work >> >> >>> that they do rather than pay them less than they can sensibly live on. >> >> >>> Ford was about the first in the USA to actually do this. >> >> >> >> It only makes sense if the money comes from somewhere. If all the >> >> >> employers arbitrarily doubled wages, inflation would take it all away >> >> >> >We are talking here of industrialised manufacture that was possibly two >> >> >or more orders of magnitude more productive. All the profits went to the >> >> >mill owners and their workers were left to starve on a subsistance level >> >> >of pay because it was marginally better than being out of work. >> >> >> That effect was transient. The first mill owners could indeed hire >> >> unemployed labor cheap. >> >> >At the time, the mechanisation of agriculture was decreasing the >> >demand for agricultural labourers in the country, so they moved into >> >the cities to find work. >> >> >> As other mill owners got into the act, they >> >> had to compete for labor whether they were nice people or not. >> >> >They didn't have to compete; they could agree to divide up the >> >labourers availalble and pay them the same subsistence rate. Cartels >> >and trusts formalised the process by which evil factory owners >> >conspired to rip off their employees, and employers who upset the >> >apple-cart by offering higher pay could sudenely find that they >> >couldn't buy the feed-stock from which their products were >> >constructed. Why do you think that US first introduced anti-trust >> >legislation in 1887? >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law >> >> >> The >> >> laborers benefitted on the other side as food, clothing, building >> >> materials, all sorts of stuff, got cheaper because productivity and >> >> transportation were indeed orders of magnitude improved by new >> >> technology. >> >> >If the factory owners didn't reduce wages to reflect the new, lower, >> >cost of living ... >> >> >> Productivity is the ultimate benevolence. Technology pushes >> >> productivity. >> >> >Perfectly true. But it doesn't do a thing to ensure that the benefits >> >of increased productivity are equally shared between capital and >> >labour. >> >> Competition does that, and anti-trust laws make companies compete. >> Unfortunately, no laws make unions compete. So business reacts >> logically, by leaving the country or going out of business. >> >> But what would you know about productivity? > >More than you do, obviously. The Germans have strong trade unions, >well-protected by law, and German companies are neither out-sourcing >nor going out of business. > >You seem to be getting your ideas about "productivity" from the usual >right-wing propaganda mills, No, I get my ideas about productivity by doing it, and helping other people do it. Your career seems to have been punctuated by a series of technical failures; the most productive thing you have done is quit designing electronics. We thank you for that. John
From: John Larkin on 15 May 2010 11:50 On Sat, 15 May 2010 11:08:13 +0100, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 14/05/2010 21:42, John Larkin wrote: >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:53:22 +0100, Martin Brown >> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 14/05/2010 16:06, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:31:49 +0100, Martin Brown >>>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Engels saw first hand what greedy industrialists were doing to their >>>>> workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. Boiler explosions were >>>>> commonplace up until the Vulcan insurers made a stand and insisted on >>>>> proper boiler safety inspections. And in cases of tampering with safety >>>>> relief valves they would not pay out. >>>>> >>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>> It makes reasonable sense to pay your workers a living wage for the work >>>>> that they do rather than pay them less than they can sensibly live on. >>>>> Ford was about the first in the USA to actually do this. >>>> >>>> It only makes sense if the money comes from somewhere. If all the >>>> employers arbitrarily doubled wages, inflation would take it all away >>> >>> We are talking here of industrialised manufacture that was possibly two >>> or more orders of magnitude more productive. All the profits went to the >>> mill owners and their workers were left to starve on a subsistance level >>> of pay because it was marginally better than being out of work. >> >> That effect was transient. The first mill owners could indeed hire >> unemployed labor cheap. As other mill owners got into the act, they >> had to compete for labor whether they were nice people or not. The > >That isn't how it worked at all. There were enough starving people >migrating to the cities that the mill owners could fix the price they >were prepared to pay and anyway preferred to employ children at roughly >1/10 of the adult rate where possible. The working day was unregulated >but typically around 14 hours. A brief history of some of the worst >areas of the country for these practices is online at: > >http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/history/victorian/Victorian1.html > >The poor were viewed as an underclass to be exploited for commercial >gain like beasts of burden and kept poor. They lived in squalour and >paid barely enough to stay alive. This "transient" situation persisted >until the late 19th century which is how Engles came to observe it. Yes, that was al the transition period. Before technology caught up with fertility. > >The blockade of cotton during the American War of Independence led to >mass starvation in Lancashire as without raw cotton the mills closed. >Like all these things the reality was more complex than the simple anti >slavery storyline history that is taught in schools. eg. > >http://www.spinningtheweb.org.uk/m_display.php?irn=10&sub=overview&theme=overview&crumb=Lancashire+Cotton+Famine > >And there was cotton available but spivs and speculators were holding it >in warehouses waiting for the price to rise even more. > >> laborers benefitted on the other side as food, clothing, building >> materials, all sorts of stuff, got cheaper because productivity and >> transportation were indeed orders of magnitude improved by new >> technology. > >No they didn't. The food was deliberately overpriced by way of the Corn >Laws (which misleadingly apply to wheat) whereby rich land owners and >the merchants in the cities could rip them off. It was paradoxically the >more enlightened of the mill owners who fought back against this >particularly nasty exploitation of the poor to keep their wage bills low >by forming the anti-Corn-Law League in Manchester in about 1840. > >About the same time as the banking system crashed spectacularly as a >result of a new cunning scheme by merchant wankers. It was indirectly >related to the Mississippi banking crisis but effectively crippled >global trade. I think in part triggered by a collapse in raliroad mania. >There was even a similar letter from the Bank of England reprimanding >the bankers for their "irrational exuberance" aka wild speculation. It >led to a campaign against the gold standard. > >It seems that the global banking system has major crashes with an almost >predictable period of 80-90 years - 1847, 1929, 2008 The period is getting shorter, and nobody with any sense is doing anything to lend stability. Quite the opposite. >> >> Productivity is the ultimate benevolence. Technology pushes >> productivity. > >Increased productivity is good, but only when some of the proceeds are >shared with the people who are doing the work. If workers are massively productive, where is the stuff going to go, but to the workers? Where else could it go? Why would Henry Ford want to personally own a million model Ts? Why would Edison want a billion light bulbs for himself? Widespread productivity is better than widespread lack of same. In the Victorian era most >of the mill owners were out to exploit the poor for maximum profit. They >had enough money to buy the capital kit to enter the market and were >determined to keep it that way. The eventual rise of a powerful middle >class of managers and administrators eventually broke the deadlock but >the workers at the bottom of the pile had little option but to form >unions if they were ever to get a fair deal. All business people want to maximize profit. As productivity and competition increase, we go from pre-Victorian poverty to modern car-in-every-drivway. Nobody guides the process... it has its own dynamic. There's no credit and no blame; actors act and the system changes. John
From: Nico Coesel on 15 May 2010 13:11
John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.hdgFGtPjbY > >You can't fool Mother Nature. When a few hundred million people choose >to not work much, not breed much, and consume a lot, you just can't >spend your way out of the problem. > >This is the leading edge of the European demographic crisis that's >been building for generations now. There's no quick fix. My gut feeling says this is all a bunch of nonsense. Countries are still waiting in line to start using the Euro: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8678073.stm -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) -------------------------------------------------------------- |