Posted by tomorrow@erols.com on January 10, 2011, 11:48 pm
wrote:
> So I really don't see how it's possible to talk intelligently
> about economics without some minimal knowledge of
> basic 20th and 21st century history.- Hide quoted text -
There is no requirement to talk intelligently about economics (or
anything else) on reeky.
Just sayin' ......
Posted by saddlebag on January 11, 2011, 6:43 am
wrote:
> > > > > > > the biggest reason for our post-
> > > > > > > war affluence lay in the fact, right after WWII, the rest of the world
> > > > > > > was basically in ruins.
> > > > > > True, but I don't think China was part of that. I realize Japanese
> > > > > > had invaded in that time frame, but I don't know that they left the
> > > > > > place in ruin.
> > > > > I was under the mistaken impression that not only was China in ruins,
> > > > > but they'd also suffered through civil war between Chiang Kai-shek
> > > > > and the Communists both before and after WWII.
> > > > Could be, thanks for the information.
> > > You're welcome, but please tell me you knew this
> > > already and were trolling.
> > I was aware that there was fighting and that the commies forced out
> > the previous regime as an old Chinese buddy of mine was from the
> > region of China from where the current Taiwanese ruling party was
> > headquartered. I learned more today from another Chinese friend, but
> > aside from that I admit ignorance. I don't recall ever studying
> > Chinese history and if I did somewhere along the line it has been long
> > since forgotten.
> > Once during a corporate team building exercise, we were asked to play
> > trivia. First we played by ourselves then paired up, then played in
> > groups of four and we all tallied the scores as we went along. The
> > more people who played the better the scores got. The idea is that
> > different people bring different knowledge and experience to the table
> > and make for a better team.
> > I don't claim to know much, but I do know how basic economics works
> > and by the direction of our country, I can tell the most here don't.
> > I would just like to join their trivia team...
> OK, for starters, Don's point was that the USA and Canada
> enjoyed a lot of post WWII success, not because they were
> better, but because they were the only industrialized countries
> not bombed flat. Japan, BTW was the only industrialized country
> in Asia.
I agree, but by your own admission here, bombed flat or not (which I
still haven't got any hard evidence for) China was simply not a
player.
> Don goes on to correctly conclude that this success was an
> anomaly and not a norm. As other countries have bootstrap
> their way to industrialization, we can expect that some
> manufacturing will move there, especially if labor costs are
> lower.
Only because we ceded the technology to earn the upper echelon some
quick ca$h. Part of it is excessive regulation too. The CEO of Intel
recently said it would cost him a cool billion more to build a fab in
Cali than in Asia. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for environmental
protection, but the bureaucracy behind it can really muck up the works
with all those high dollar govies having to constantly justify their
existence and all.
> And it doesn't cost a fortune to manage overseas labor from
> America either.
He, I'd like to refer you to our Quality dept. They have a different
take.
> If we really shot ourselves in the foot, then
> maybe it was by pioneering the internet. And it's equally
> unlikely that we'd be able to impose wage or manufacturing
> standards on another country simply by threatening to lock
> them out of the American market.
With our days of easy credit and excessive consumerism over I suspect
it would be more difficult, but we still have a pretty thirsty and
affluent class of people here. You might be surprised what a good
negotiator can achieve. But regardless, if they choose not to except
it then we either learn to do it ourselves again or go without. The
idea of sacrifice has surely died with our last generation.
> So I really don't see how it's possible to talk intelligently
> about economics without some minimal knowledge of
> basic 20th and 21st century history.
Oh bite me. So if I ask you how to design a fluxgate magnetometer and
you don't know then that means you can't speak about engineering
fundamentals?
Posted by saddlebag on January 11, 2011, 6:44 am
On Jan 10, 11:48 pm, "tomor...@erols.com"
> wrote:
> > So I really don't see how it's possible to talk intelligently
> > about economics without some minimal knowledge of
> > basic 20th and 21st century history.- Hide quoted text -
> There is no requirement to talk intelligently about economics (or
> anything else) on reeky.
> Just sayin' ......
Which is why you avoid information and simple challenges to disprove
my arguments.
Posted by The Older Gentleman on January 11, 2011, 7:26 am
> On Jan 10, 11:48 pm, "tomor...@erols.com"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So I really don't see how it's possible to talk intelligently
> > > about economics without some minimal knowledge of
> > > basic 20th and 21st century history.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > There is no requirement to talk intelligently about economics (or
> > anything else) on reeky.
> >
> > Just sayin' ......
>
> Which is why you avoid information and simple challenges to disprove
> my arguments.
Your arguments have been disproved over and over and over again. But you
refuse to accept it.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Triumph Street Triple Honda CB400F
Suzuki TS250 Suzuki GN250 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom
Nothing damages a machine more than an ignoramus with a manual, a
can-do attitude and a set of cheap tools
Posted by tomorrow@erols.com on January 11, 2011, 8:19 am
> On Jan 10, 11:48 pm, "tomor...@erols.com"
> > wrote:
> > > So I really don't see how it's possible to talk intelligently
> > > about economics without some minimal knowledge of
> > > basic 20th and 21st century history.- Hide quoted text -
> > There is no requirement to talk intelligently about economics (or
> > anything else) on reeky.
> > Just sayin' ......
> Which is why you avoid information and simple challenges to disprove
> my arguments.
No, I've seen no evidence of you having the capacity to comprehend
cogent discussions; you've always and forever ignored all the well-
supported and documented facts that I've posted over many years that
simply demolish your unsupported and laughable assertions; so I have
given up on you. Not intelligent discussions. You.
At least, unlike the others here who are as clueless as you, you
maintain a sense of humor.
XML Sitemap
> about economics without some minimal knowledge of
> basic 20th and 21st century history.- Hide quoted text -