economics: Germany
in [Design]
|
From: m II on 10 Jul 2010 19:45 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> As one example, I'm betting that Taiwan will be handed over to the >> mainland, in part payment. Tibet's already been sacrificed. > > How do you figure that Tibet has been sacrificed? I don't remember owning it. > Are you suggesting that we should go to war to "liberate" Tibet? The Hungarian revolution in '56 comes to mind. The US promised the wood-be revolutionaries that once they started the revolt, help would be on the way. They started the revolt and the States did NOTHING. 87+ thousand dead and almost 200 thousand taken to Siberia. So much for promises. Taiwan has been promised protection since what, '49? It seems that's been a promise of rapidly diminishing value and as soon as China says 'jump', Washington will. They owe too much money not to. As for Tibet, the US has broken every promise it has ever made concerning 'negotiating with China'.The present administration is as guilty as all the previous ones. Business trumps freedom everytime. Let's not get into the origins of 'Banana Republic' or the 500 thousand dead Philippinos killed by their Liberators. The scenario typically runs like this: US: Be nicer to (.......) China: You have our money? US: Kill 'em all and let the bookkeepers sort 'em out.
From: John Larkin on 10 Jul 2010 21:03 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:19:17 +0200, German <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 10.07.2010 23:57, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:22:21 +0200, German<invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> On 10.07.2010 19:42, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:22:36 +0200, German<invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 06.07.2010 00:43, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>> On Jul 5, 4:28 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 4, 7:21 pm, John Larkin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f011f36-87ae-11df-9f37-00144feabdc0.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It appears that the Germans, at least, appreciate where they are on >>>>>>>> the Laffer curve. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The stronger-than-expected growth and falls in unemployment were >>>>>>> making it significantly easier for Germany to reduce its public sector >>>>>>> deficit." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We'd be bouncing back too but for Obama. Even flat on its back, our >>>>>>> economy would be trying to sit up if Big Bro wasn't busy holding it >>>>>>> down. It was and is weakly trying, but he just won't let it. >>>>>> >>>>>> It isn't Obama who shipped great swathes of American manufacturing >>>>>> industry off to China and Mexico. Germany is doing well because it >>>>>> does manufacturing better than anybody else. >>>>> >>>>> This, sadly enough, is only theoretically true, because here in Germany >>>>> we don't have much left to manufacture. This parts of the industry have >>>>> been shifted to China, Rumania,... in the last years. So it is basically >>>>> the same situation here. >>>>> >>>>> Greets from Germany >>>> >>>> Germany still has a trade balance surplus. Do you think that will go >>>> away? >>> >>> I'm not familiar with the figures. The media report, that the situation >>> is improving at the moment. But I personally don't have a good feeling >>> for the future. >>> >>>> >>>> Keep making cars, anyhow. German cars are great.. even the ones made >>>> in Mexico. >>> >>> I hope we will and thanks in the name of all that are involved in their >>> production. >> >> My last four cars have been Fiesta (made in Germany), VW Golf, VW >> Rabbit, and now an Audi A3 Quattro. The A3 is beautiful and awesome >> mechanically, but the firmware sort of sucks. > >VW Rabbit is funny, I had to look that one up. Here it's only known as >"VW Golf I". VW can't decide whether it's a Golf or a Rabbit here. They have changed back and forth 3 or 4 times now. I think it's a Golf this year. > >I drive an Golf Mk3 from 1997 with 75 (metric) HP. Perfect car for me: >simple, robust and relatively low fuel consumption (important, if you >have to pay up to 1.45 Euros per liter). Unfortunately it has started to >rust lately and I already had to replace some body parts. I hope I can >still drive it for a few years. > >The A3 is really a great car. I wouldn't mind owning one. > >The firmware and electronics seem to be an issue for this generation of >(german?) cars in general. I know quite some people who also had had >problems with their cars in this respect. That's why I love my Golf, it >hasn't much electronics and firmware that can fail (writes an elecrical >engineer, pure irony). I hate over-tech stuff. The Audi thinks it's smarter than I am. All the HVAC and radio and nav controls are digital and incremental, so you have to take your eyes off the road and press a sequence of tiny, confusing buttons to do anything. It's downright dangerous. There's a separate manual for the radio/navigation subsystem. I haven't yet figured out the door locks. It will lock itself whenever it feels like. I don't dare leave the keys in the car, because it might decide to lock me out. What sort of engineering do you do? John
From: krw on 10 Jul 2010 21:14 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:00:23 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:57:23 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:35:31 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:03:34 -0600, m II <c(a)in.the.hat> wrote: >>> >>>>Joerg wrote: >>>> >>>>> Out here the ultimate cat's meouw would be an all tricked-out truck with >>>>> a huge engine, and where you need a ladder to get in. >>>> >>>> >>>>4 X 4 = IQ for some of those people. I swear, they must be forced to >>>>get a lobotomy before they can drive those things. They seem to be bent >>>>on destroying nature with empty beer cans and quarter mile long >>>>burn-outs through the bird nesting areas. >>>> >>>>They're the Archies of the automotive world. >>>> >>>>mike >>> >>>I love the names of these vehicles: Sierra, Tundra, Outback, Tahoe, >>>Sequoia, Yukon, all the places they are designed to destroy. >>> >>>Blazer, n: forest clear-cutting device >> >>or "quite fast". > >"Burns vigorously." That's what I would do with one. >>>Xterra, v: latin for "destroy the earth" >> >>or "out of this world" > >or "made out of dirt" or "reborn".
From: Bill Bowden on 10 Jul 2010 21:29 On Jul 10, 9:26 am, m II <c...(a)in.the.hat> wrote: > Bill Bowden wrote: > >> 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? > > The question is rapidly becoming "*Why* are they going to sell if we > keep paying with increasingly worthless pieces of paper?". > Another question might be "Where" are they going to invest surplus profits other than US securities, which can be exchanged on a minutes notice? Why don't the Chinese just buy gold instead of US bonds? > If they demanded payment in full, what would our too cheaply bought > politicians do? > They couldn't demand payment until maturity. They would have to sell to someone else, and find a buyer. The market would crash. > As one example, I'm betting that Taiwan will be handed over to the > mainland, in part payment. Tibet's already been sacrificed. > > mike -Bill
From: dagmargoodboat on 10 Jul 2010 22:30
On Jul 6, 5:57 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Jul 6, 4:25 pm, dagmargoodb...(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: > > > > 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. > > The example is even dumber. Governments create and destroy jobs by > manipulating the money supply. A single means of control can produce > either effect. Right, so if we need more toilet paper, increase the money supply. Too many toothpicks? Increase the money supply. "Now, this president understands deeply that governments don't create jobs, businesses create jobs." --Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, United States, 7- Jul-2010 http://www.businessinsider.com/suddenly-the-white-house-claims-its-pro-growth-and-pro-business-2010-7 -- Cheers, James Arthur |