economics: Germany
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Hobbs on 9 Jul 2010 12:16 On 7/6/2010 10:54 AM, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 07:25:39 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > >> On Jul 6, 7:37 am, Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> On Jul 6, 6:53 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>> Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >>>> So, implicitly, as of 1937 Roosevelt's first and second stimulus >>>> packages (aka The New Deal) still hadn't worked, right? >>> >>> They had worked, and had gotten unemployment down from 25% to 9%. In >>> 1937 - in a premature fit of "fiscal responsiblity" the residual >>> stimulus was stopped - too early - and unemployment went back up to >>> 17%. >> >> Nope, but here's a nice picture for you: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Origins >> >>>> The fact is >>>> that government has no ability to create jobs. Not then, not now. >>> >>> Palpable nonsense. Since you acknowledge that it has the ability to >>> destroy them you should be able to understand that it also has the >>> capabliity to create them, >> >> "Ability to destroy" does not imply ability to create. That a >> teenager can wreck you car proves he can make them? That's dumb. > > There's the time factor, too: things take a long time to build, but > they can be destroyed essentially instantly. Jobs, businesses, > productive infrastructures, even if set free, will take a generation > to grow back. The US electorate hasn't that sort of patience, so we > get idiotic macroeconomic things like "stimulus", the equivalent of > shooting speed into your arm instead of exercizing and eating your > broccoli. > > John > > "What's the difference between a mechanical engineer and a civil engineer?" "Mechanical engineers build weapons, and civil engineers build targets." Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
From: krw on 9 Jul 2010 18:36 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:11:42 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 22:01:16 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:43:06 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:29:26 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:14:29 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: <snip> >>>>>What matters is the net fraction of the population that is actually >>>>>doing productive work. Retired people, kids, students, people who >>>>>choose not to work, stay-home mothers, government types... all consume >>>>>food, housing, health care, and other stuff and don't produce any. >>>> >>>>Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Retirees have investments which certainly do produce. >>>>Stay at home moms produce the next producers. >>> >>>Only those people producing stuff, well, produce stuff. "Investments" >>>don't produce anything, especially when the money is "invested" in >>>government obligations or the casino called the stock market. >> >>Oh, bullshit. Investments are where the money comes from to build things. > >Does it? Certainly. Only an Obamaniac would believe otherwise. >Most personal investments are in government bonds, which are >just ponzi promises, or stocks, which have nothing much to do with >furnishing capital for production past IPO. If I buy a stock on the >market, I'm just buying it from somebody else. The company that the >stock symbolizes isn't usually involved at all. Absolute nonsense! The stock market is where people buy and sell (public) companies. If there was no such market there would *be* no IPOs. No one would buy if they had no place to sell. Bonds, ditto. >>Were it not for the stock market these investments wouldn't be negotiable, so >>people would not invest in making things. > >There are lots of private businesses that make things. Any other colors of herring you want to stink the place up with. >The point is that you can shuffle all the green paper, or its computer >equivalents, around all you want, but in a closed system you can't >consume more than you make. Retired people who have invested their >savings, and women at home feeding babies, students who are "our >future", make nothing but continue to consume. *Somebody* has to >actually make real stuff. Someone had to make things, and someone will have to make things, too. Meanwhile, those who have support those who are and those who will. Your view of economics is quite Slowmanesque. >>>Mothers >>>at home feed themselves and their kids. That's admirable, but food and >>>electricity enter the house every day, and it's got to come from >>>somewhere. >> >>It enters your building every day, too. You don't make it. Grow up! > >But I do make stuff, much more stuff than I consume. In fact, I make >stuff that's used to make electricity. But you're not making any electricity today. You're a freeloader on those who are.
From: John Larkin on 9 Jul 2010 19:51 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:36:44 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:11:42 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 22:01:16 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:43:06 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:29:26 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:14:29 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > ><snip> > >>>>>>What matters is the net fraction of the population that is actually >>>>>>doing productive work. Retired people, kids, students, people who >>>>>>choose not to work, stay-home mothers, government types... all consume >>>>>>food, housing, health care, and other stuff and don't produce any. >>>>> >>>>>Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Retirees have investments which certainly do produce. >>>>>Stay at home moms produce the next producers. >>>> >>>>Only those people producing stuff, well, produce stuff. "Investments" >>>>don't produce anything, especially when the money is "invested" in >>>>government obligations or the casino called the stock market. >>> >>>Oh, bullshit. Investments are where the money comes from to build things. >> >>Does it? > >Certainly. Only an Obamaniac would believe otherwise. > >>Most personal investments are in government bonds, which are >>just ponzi promises, or stocks, which have nothing much to do with >>furnishing capital for production past IPO. If I buy a stock on the >>market, I'm just buying it from somebody else. The company that the >>stock symbolizes isn't usually involved at all. > >Absolute nonsense! The stock market is where people buy and sell (public) >companies. If there was no such market there would *be* no IPOs. No one >would buy if they had no place to sell. Bonds, ditto. Back in the dim past, there used to be a thing called "dividends" which returned some of a company's earnings to its shareholders. Most investment is now done for capital appreciation, which works for companies just like it does for Beanie Babies and Kincaid "art" and condos in Miami: the Greater Fool theory. > >>>Were it not for the stock market these investments wouldn't be negotiable, so >>>people would not invest in making things. >> >>There are lots of private businesses that make things. > >Any other colors of herring you want to stink the place up with. Most of the jobs in this country are created by privately held businesses. > >>The point is that you can shuffle all the green paper, or its computer >>equivalents, around all you want, but in a closed system you can't >>consume more than you make. Retired people who have invested their >>savings, and women at home feeding babies, students who are "our >>future", make nothing but continue to consume. *Somebody* has to >>actually make real stuff. > >Someone had to make things, and someone will have to make things, too. >Meanwhile, those who have support those who are and those who will. Your view >of economics is quite Slowmanesque. > >>>>Mothers >>>>at home feed themselves and their kids. That's admirable, but food and >>>>electricity enter the house every day, and it's got to come from >>>>somewhere. >>> >>>It enters your building every day, too. You don't make it. Grow up! >> >>But I do make stuff, much more stuff than I consume. In fact, I make >>stuff that's used to make electricity. > >But you're not making any electricity today. You're a freeloader on those who >are. No, I'm exchanging something that I built for something that they make. Each of us adds value to raw materials. Both of us make more than we consume. Students, retirees, people on unemployment, lots of people consume more than they make. The ratio of producers to non-producers matters. A lot of consumption in the USA is Chinese manufactured stuff, Japanese and German and Korean cars, and Saudi oil. We pay for it with dollars, and they use the dollars to buy US government bonds, so we get the appliances and cell phones and oil for free, for now, on credit. Our domestic manufacturing capacity of course evaporates. Sooner or later this process will crash. John
From: krw on 9 Jul 2010 22:48 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:51:55 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:36:44 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:11:42 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 22:01:16 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:43:06 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:29:26 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:14:29 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>>>>What matters is the net fraction of the population that is actually >>>>>>>doing productive work. Retired people, kids, students, people who >>>>>>>choose not to work, stay-home mothers, government types... all consume >>>>>>>food, housing, health care, and other stuff and don't produce any. >>>>>> >>>>>>Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Retirees have investments which certainly do produce. >>>>>>Stay at home moms produce the next producers. >>>>> >>>>>Only those people producing stuff, well, produce stuff. "Investments" >>>>>don't produce anything, especially when the money is "invested" in >>>>>government obligations or the casino called the stock market. >>>> >>>>Oh, bullshit. Investments are where the money comes from to build things. >>> >>>Does it? >> >>Certainly. Only an Obamaniac would believe otherwise. >> >>>Most personal investments are in government bonds, which are >>>just ponzi promises, or stocks, which have nothing much to do with >>>furnishing capital for production past IPO. If I buy a stock on the >>>market, I'm just buying it from somebody else. The company that the >>>stock symbolizes isn't usually involved at all. >> >>Absolute nonsense! The stock market is where people buy and sell (public) >>companies. If there was no such market there would *be* no IPOs. No one >>would buy if they had no place to sell. Bonds, ditto. > >Back in the dim past, there used to be a thing called "dividends" >which returned some of a company's earnings to its shareholders. Most >investment is now done for capital appreciation, which works for >companies just like it does for Beanie Babies and Kincaid "art" and >condos in Miami: the Greater Fool theory. Goal post movement noted. There still is such a thing. Do you not remember Obama attempting to take said dividends from BP stock holders. Some companies advertise themselves as "growth" companies, the idea being that they "reinvest" their dividends. Sometimes it works, but the prospectus is there for all to read before buying. Don't like the way the company is run? ...put your money elsewhere. Choice is a great thing. Apparently you're with the Demonicrats, believing that one should be told how to "invest in America". >>>>Were it not for the stock market these investments wouldn't be negotiable, so >>>>people would not invest in making things. >>> >>>There are lots of private businesses that make things. >> >>Any other colors of herring you want to stink the place up with. > >Most of the jobs in this country are created by privately held >businesses. Which color herring was that? >>>The point is that you can shuffle all the green paper, or its computer >>>equivalents, around all you want, but in a closed system you can't >>>consume more than you make. Retired people who have invested their >>>savings, and women at home feeding babies, students who are "our >>>future", make nothing but continue to consume. *Somebody* has to >>>actually make real stuff. >> >>Someone had to make things, and someone will have to make things, too. >>Meanwhile, those who have support those who are and those who will. Your view >>of economics is quite Slowmanesque. >> >>>>>Mothers >>>>>at home feed themselves and their kids. That's admirable, but food and >>>>>electricity enter the house every day, and it's got to come from >>>>>somewhere. >>>> >>>>It enters your building every day, too. You don't make it. Grow up! >>> >>>But I do make stuff, much more stuff than I consume. In fact, I make >>>stuff that's used to make electricity. >> >>But you're not making any electricity today. You're a freeloader on those who >>are. > >No, I'm exchanging something that I built for something that they >make. Each of us adds value to raw materials. Both of us make more >than we consume. Students, retirees, people on unemployment, lots of >people consume more than they make. The ratio of producers to >non-producers matters. So are the retired and the soccer moms. They're trading stored or earned wealth for the same things you are. >A lot of consumption in the USA is Chinese manufactured stuff, >Japanese and German and Korean cars, and Saudi oil. We pay for it with >dollars, and they use the dollars to buy US government bonds, so we >get the appliances and cell phones and oil for free, for now, on >credit. Our domestic manufacturing capacity of course evaporates. >Sooner or later this process will crash. More goal post movement noted. ...and you want to make it worse by shutting off the supply of money. You can't have it both ways.
From: Bill Bowden on 9 Jul 2010 23:42
On Jul 9, 4:51 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:36:44 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > > > > <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:11:42 -0700, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 22:01:16 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > >><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > >>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:43:06 -0700, John Larkin > >>><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:29:26 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > >>>><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > >>>>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:14:29 -0700, John Larkin > >>>>><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > ><snip> > > >>>>>>What matters is the net fraction of the population that is actually > >>>>>>doing productive work. Retired people, kids, students, people who > >>>>>>choose not to work, stay-home mothers, government types... all consume > >>>>>>food, housing, health care, and other stuff and don't produce any. > > >>>>>Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Retirees have investments which certainly do produce. > >>>>>Stay at home moms produce the next producers. > > >>>>Only those people producing stuff, well, produce stuff. "Investments" > >>>>don't produce anything, especially when the money is "invested" in > >>>>government obligations or the casino called the stock market. > > >>>Oh, bullshit. Investments are where the money comes from to build things. > > >>Does it? > > >Certainly. Only an Obamaniac would believe otherwise. > > >>Most personal investments are in government bonds, which are > >>just ponzi promises, or stocks, which have nothing much to do with > >>furnishing capital for production past IPO. If I buy a stock on the > >>market, I'm just buying it from somebody else. The company that the > >>stock symbolizes isn't usually involved at all. > > >Absolute nonsense! The stock market is where people buy and sell (public) > >companies. If there was no such market there would *be* no IPOs. No one > >would buy if they had no place to sell. Bonds, ditto. > > Back in the dim past, there used to be a thing called "dividends" > which returned some of a company's earnings to its shareholders. Most > investment is now done for capital appreciation, which works for > companies just like it does for Beanie Babies and Kincaid "art" and > condos in Miami: the Greater Fool theory. > > > > >>>Were it not for the stock market these investments wouldn't be negotiable, so > >>>people would not invest in making things. > > >>There are lots of private businesses that make things. > > >Any other colors of herring you want to stink the place up with. > > Most of the jobs in this country are created by privately held > businesses. > > > > > > >>The point is that you can shuffle all the green paper, or its computer > >>equivalents, around all you want, but in a closed system you can't > >>consume more than you make. Retired people who have invested their > >>savings, and women at home feeding babies, students who are "our > >>future", make nothing but continue to consume. *Somebody* has to > >>actually make real stuff. > > >Someone had to make things, and someone will have to make things, too. > >Meanwhile, those who have support those who are and those who will. Your view > >of economics is quite Slowmanesque. > > >>>>Mothers > >>>>at home feed themselves and their kids. That's admirable, but food and > >>>>electricity enter the house every day, and it's got to come from > >>>>somewhere. > > >>>It enters your building every day, too. You don't make it. Grow up! > > >>But I do make stuff, much more stuff than I consume. In fact, I make > >>stuff that's used to make electricity. > > >But you're not making any electricity today. You're a freeloader on those who > >are. > > No, I'm exchanging something that I built for something that they > make. Each of us adds value to raw materials. Both of us make more > than we consume. Students, retirees, people on unemployment, lots of > people consume more than they make. The ratio of producers to > non-producers matters. > What about Warren Buffet who made 50 billion investing in the market. What did he produce other than advice on how to make money? > A lot of consumption in the USA is Chinese manufactured stuff, > Japanese and German and Korean cars, and Saudi oil. We pay for it with > dollars, and they use the dollars to buy US government bonds, so we > get the appliances and cell phones and oil for free, for now, on > credit. Our domestic manufacturing capacity of course evaporates. > Sooner or later this process will crash. > The Chinese need our markets so they can keep their economy going. What are they going to sell if we quite buying their stuff? -Bill |