Bush and our Future

[Rolavine]

Click here: TechExtreme - Tech Jobs - Tech Job Losses Mount

"The U.S. high-tech industry lost 540,000 jobs last year -- the workforce
dropped to 6 million, according to a study by AeA, a high-tech trade
association. Called "Cyberstates 2003: A State-by-State Overview of the
High-Technology Industry," the study illustrates some not-so-surprising
regional trends.

Employment in California's tech industry, for example, dropped by 11 percent
last year, reducing the number of workers to 995,000. Venture-capital
investments in the state dropped by 43 percent -- from US$16 billion in 2001 to
$9 billion in 2002.

The sobering statistical analysis ends with the prediction that another 234,000
I.T. jobs will be lost this year, which, explains the trade association's CEO,
is not necessarily bad news. "While high-tech employment fell by 8 percent last
year, preliminary 2003 data show a significant slowdown in high-tech job
losses, with a decline of 4 percent," William Archey said. "We project that the
2003 high-tech job losses will [be] down 57 percent from the 540,000 decline in
2002."

The sector with the largest decrease in jobs is electronics manufacturing,
where more than half of all tech jobs were lost between 2001 and 2002. A new
and entirely unwelcome trend also materialized in the software industry: For
the first time in Cyberstates' seven-year publishing history, the software
sector recorded a loss of nearly 150,000 jobs last year. The engineering and
tech-services sector lost 15,000 jobs in 2002. The one bright spot was in R&D
and testing labs, where employment increased by 7,000 in 2002."

Most of my competition is out of business and I'm just paying the bills. There
are a dozen huge facilites around the Portland Oregon area that are closed up
now.

Bush did nothing to encourage investment in High Technology or other hard hit
sectors. The tax cuts and 1% prime rate did not save 3 million American Jobs.

Rocky

Blanket tax cut did not help our kind at all.

Rocky

 

[Marc Guardiani]

It's not on the web, so I can't verify what you're saying. Also, AeA
can't figure out how to use Google to search their own site. Not very
credible.


Rolavine wrote:

Click here: TechExtreme - Tech Jobs - Tech Job Losses Mount

"The U.S. high-tech industry lost 540,000 jobs last year -- the workforce
dropped to 6 million, according to a study by AeA, a high-tech trade
association. Called "Cyberstates 2003: A State-by-State Overview of the
High-Technology Industry," the study illustrates some not-so-surprising
regional trends.

 

[Rolavine]

Sorry, my link did not take.

http://techextreme.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=22727
There is the address for what I quoted.

The gist of the story is that 540,000 high Tech jobs were lost in the US in
2002, and that these jobs now number only 6 million.
This story was from November 19,2003.

The AEA site is
http://www.aeanet.org/
and Google had no trouble finding it Marc?

So this should solve our credibilty gap?

And this from the Boston Herald just today.
http://business.bostonherald.com/technologyNews/view.bg?articleid=11823

"Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, campaigning in Midwest states
hurt by job losses, proposed greater government investment in such technologies
as renewable fuels and hybrid engines to build new industries. "

Subject: Re: Bush and our Future
From: Marc Guardiani marc@guardiani.com
Date: 4/29/2004 6:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <SDhkc.34307$eK3.22445@nwrdny01.gnilink.net

It's not on the web, so I can't verify what you're saying. Also, AeA
can't figure out how to use Google to search their own site. Not very
credible.


Rolavine wrote:

Click here: TechExtreme - Tech Jobs - Tech Job Losses Mount

"The U.S. high-tech industry lost 540,000 jobs last year -- the workforce
dropped to 6 million, according to a study by AeA, a high-tech trade
association. Called "Cyberstates 2003: A State-by-State Overview of the
High-Technology Industry," the study illustrates some not-so-surprising
regional trends.

 

[John Larkin]

On 29 Apr 2004 16:13:04 GMT, rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:

Most of my competition is out of business and I'm just paying the bills. There
are a dozen huge facilites around the Portland Oregon area that are closed up
now.

What sort of business are you in?

Blame the illusory dot.com misallocation of resources and the stock
market bubble... it took the last half of the 1990s to put that mess
into place, and will take a while to fix. Actually, the US
unemployment rate is fairly low and dropping... about 5.6% I think,
well below the average rate of the 1990s. France and Germany are
running close to 10.

Why blame Bush? Presidents mostly take the credit or get the blame,
but can't influence the economy a lot, especially in the short term.

We had too many programmers (actually, webbies) anyhow.

John

 

[Rolavine]

Subject: Re: Bush and our Future
From: John Larkin jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com
Date: 4/29/2004 9:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <rdm390d9shgv7c11avlibu2moie1rpmei4@4ax.com

On 29 Apr 2004 16:13:04 GMT, rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:


Most of my competition is out of business and I'm just paying the bills.
There
are a dozen huge facilites around the Portland Oregon area that are closed
up
now.


What sort of business are you in?

Blame the illusory dot.com misallocation of resources and the stock
market bubble... it took the last half of the 1990s to put that mess
into place, and will take a while to fix. Actually, the US
unemployment rate is fairly low and dropping... about 5.6% I think,
well below the average rate of the 1990s. France and Germany are
running close to 10.

Why blame Bush? Presidents mostly take the credit or get the blame,
but can't influence the economy a lot, especially in the short term.

We had too many programmers (actually, webbies) anyhow.

John

I'm a one man band electronic engineering business, 15 years on my own.

This economy has lost about 3 million jobs during the Bush years. Bush gave
across the board tax cuts. This did not result in making many new jobs in the
US. By giving investors tax cuts for investing in our hardest hit sectors, many
of these job losses could have been avoided. The tax cuts manipulated the
economy by putting more money in the hands of the rich. They did not invest in
US High Tech, and your reasons are valid. However, based on the articles I
quoted in this thread, about 700,000 tech jobs were lost. This is a
disproportionally high number out of the 3 million jobs lost, considering that
High Tech only has about 6 million workers.

So, why blame Bush, he gave about 250 billion dollars of tax cuts, his claim
was that it would stimulate the economy, the result was still 3 million jobs
lost. So, Bush failed with his plan. Many economists, including Nobel prize
winners, said it would not work, and they were right. To stimulate the creation
of jobs you have to be a little more selective about the process of throwing
money.

Kerry has talked about this point.

Rocky

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rolavine wrote:

Sorry, my link did not take.

http://techextreme.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=22727
There is the address for what I quoted.

The gist of the story is that 540,000 high Tech jobs were lost in the US in
2002, and that these jobs now number only 6 million.
This story was from November 19,2003.

The AEA site is
http://www.aeanet.org/
and Google had no trouble finding it Marc?

Whoop-de-do.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/04/30/rtr1354445.html

So this should solve our credibilty gap?

What "credibility gap"?

And this from the Boston Herald just today.
http://business.bostonherald.com/technologyNews/view.bg?articleid=11823

"Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, campaigning in Midwest states
hurt by job losses, proposed greater government investment in such technologies
as renewable fuels and hybrid engines to build new industries. "

Bullshit, plain and simple. Those "new industries" would
supposedly put "displaced" workers in new jobs, right?
There's a major hitch; the workers would need retraining.
Labor Unions _do not want_ retraining to work because they'd
lose "loyal members" since the workers would likely join a
different Union. Union members are encouraged to believe
that the job they now have is the "only one worth having"
since it gives them a wholly vaporous status. Now ask
yourself what the members are "loyal" to; their own real
interests (making a living no matter what the economy is
based on), or the Unions' bullshit?

Hence the major factor keeping us on an "oil economy" is
the UAW, not the White House.

Why the hell anyone with three functioning cerebral
neurons would join an organization dedicated to keeping them
in a job that's _guaranteed_ to disappear sooner or later
(as all jobs are) is beyond me.

You also wrote:

Most of my competition is out of business and I'm just paying the bills. There
are a dozen huge facilites around the Portland Oregon area that are closed up
now.

Did the people who worked there take any initiative in
being able to do any other kind of work?

Are _you_ making any effort to figure out how to make a
living doing something else?

Bush did nothing to encourage investment in High Technology or other hard hit
sectors. The tax cuts and 1% prime rate did not save 3 million American Jobs.

What do you mean by "high technology"? Car manufacturing
used to be that, but it's now mostly done by robots, and a
good thing that is.

Blanket tax cut did not help our kind at all.

Who is "our kind"? I found a job twenty years ago that
_cannot_ be outsourced. Why don't you do something similar
instead of whining that "Daddy President" isn't taking care
of you?

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Richard Henry]

"Rolavine" <rolavine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040430030836.26979.00000548@mb-m12.aol.com...

This economy has lost about 3 million jobs during the Bush years. Bush
gave
across the board tax cuts. This did not result in making many new jobs in
the
US. By giving investors tax cuts for investing in our hardest hit sectors,
many
of these job losses could have been avoided. The tax cuts manipulated the
economy by putting more money in the hands of the rich. They did not
invest in
US High Tech, and your reasons are valid. However, based on the articles I
quoted in this thread, about 700,000 tech jobs were lost. This is a
disproportionally high number out of the 3 million jobs lost, considering
that
High Tech only has about 6 million workers.

So, why blame Bush, he gave about 250 billion dollars of tax cuts, his
claim
was that it would stimulate the economy, the result was still 3 million
jobs
lost. So, Bush failed with his plan. Many economists, including Nobel
prize
winners, said it would not work, and they were right. To stimulate the
creation
of jobs you have to be a little more selective about the process of
throwing
money.

I recently lost my job due to cutbacks in a high-tech company.

On the other hand, my 401(K) is doing so well since then that I consider
myself retired.

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Rolavine" <rolavine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040430030836.26979.00000548@mb-m12.aol.com...

Subject: Re: Bush and our Future
From: John Larkin jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com
Date: 4/29/2004 9:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <rdm390d9shgv7c11avlibu2moie1rpmei4@4ax.com

On 29 Apr 2004 16:13:04 GMT, rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:


Most of my competition is out of business and I'm just paying the bills.
There
are a dozen huge facilites around the Portland Oregon area that are
closed
up
now.


What sort of business are you in?

Blame the illusory dot.com misallocation of resources and the stock
market bubble... it took the last half of the 1990s to put that mess
into place, and will take a while to fix. Actually, the US
unemployment rate is fairly low and dropping... about 5.6% I think,
well below the average rate of the 1990s. France and Germany are
running close to 10.

Why blame Bush? Presidents mostly take the credit or get the blame,
but can't influence the economy a lot, especially in the short term.

We had too many programmers (actually, webbies) anyhow.

John


I'm a one man band electronic engineering business, 15 years on my own.

This economy has lost about 3 million jobs during the Bush years. Bush
gave
across the board tax cuts. This did not result in making many new jobs in
the
US. By giving investors tax cuts for investing in our hardest hit sectors,
many
of these job losses could have been avoided.

But this would just perpetuate the massive over-investment that caused the
current problem in the tech sector.

The tax cuts manipulated the
economy by putting more money in the hands of the rich. They did not
invest in
US High Tech, and your reasons are valid. However, based on the articles I
quoted in this thread, about 700,000 tech jobs were lost. This is a
disproportionally high number out of the 3 million jobs lost, considering
that
High Tech only has about 6 million workers.

Because that's where the most over-investment was. Remember how everyone
thought it was a really good idea to put everything possible into tech, coz
that's where heaps of moolah was to be made?

So, why blame Bush, he gave about 250 billion dollars of tax cuts, his
claim
was that it would stimulate the economy, the result was still 3 million
jobs
lost. So, Bush failed with his plan.

Or he reduced what may have happened. I don't have any glass babies, or
crystal balls, so I can't tell.

Many economists, including Nobel prize
winners, said it would not work, and they were right. To stimulate the
creation
of jobs you have to be a little more selective about the process of
throwing
money.

Go see "A beautiful mind" and tell me if it's relevant that Nobel Prize
winners thought anything at all. They need not have a grip on reality, any
more than you and I.

Kerry has talked about this point.

And so have we. It was fun, but proves nothing. Where you waste government
money (ie. Taxes) is fairly important though, so I'd suggest 'throwing' it
around is a little pointless.

Rocky

Ken

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Rolavine wrote:

Click here: TechExtreme - Tech Jobs - Tech Job Losses Mount

"The U.S. high-tech industry lost 540,000 jobs last year -- the workforce
dropped to 6 million, according to a study by AeA, a high-tech trade
association. Called "Cyberstates 2003: A State-by-State Overview of the
High-Technology Industry," the study illustrates some not-so-surprising
regional trends.
[snip ]

You may not yet have noticed that the highpaid jobs were shifted to 3rd
world countries to reduce the cost. While there are some countries
that just have a lot of of coffee beans there are others who have the
engineers. Such as India and China. In order to remain competitive,
you (yes!) also have to reduce the cost.

This means try to restart with 1/5 th of the previous salary.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

 

[Reg Edwards]

Ultimately, US unemployment increases because US purchasers buy cheaper
goods and food from overseas. And it will keep on doing so until the
standard of living in the various parts of the world equalises.

Unleashing weapons of mass destruction around the globe only delays matters.

Anyway, ever since the invention of the uses of fire, the wheel, the steam
engine and the microprocessor, it has been mankind's primary objective to
make himself 100 percent unemployed and take a very early retirement.

So why all the complaints now we are on the verge of succeeding?
----
Reg.

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"Rolavine" <rolavine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040430030836.26979.00000548@mb-m12.aol.com...

So, why blame Bush, he gave about 250 billion dollars of tax cuts, his
claim
was that it would stimulate the economy, the result was still 3 million
jobs
lost. So, Bush failed with his plan.

How do you conclude that?

Do you think that "the game of economy" has ended now and we can count the
score?
.... And ... What would the alternatives be and what of their consequences?

The US GDP growth of 4.2% is way above Europes f.ex. - and they tax
everybody to Hell.

Many economists, including Nobel prize
winners, said it would not work, and they were right.

Economics is not a Science! It is mere speculation wrapped in theories that:

A: Cannot be proven experimentally - because "the experiment" cannot be
delimited nor can it be repeated under identical conditions.

B: Have very limited predictive powers - because everytime "an experiment"
is performed it changes the state of the model, thus changing the
assumptions that went into the model in the first place.

C: Economists spend a lot of time explaining why previous reasoning of cause
and effect does not apply *this special time* only to find out that it does
anyway; thus discrediting themselves further by showing little faith in
their own reasoning. I.e. "The New Economy" ....

To stimulate the creation
of jobs you have to be a little more selective about the process of
throwing
money.

Which means ... What Exactly? What would you do?

Kerry has talked about this point.

Gob is cheap and plentiful in a politician - who cares? We do not know what
Kerry would have done, what the effects would have been or indeed if, the
event that Kerry gets elected, it actually makes a mesureable difference!

I think not - complex interconnected systems like an economy has their own
agenda - and a random politician probably has little scope for predicting
what the effect of any specific action will be. But they like us to believe
that.

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:40921c1c$0$701$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch...

Rolavine wrote:
Click here: TechExtreme - Tech Jobs - Tech Job Losses Mount

"The U.S. high-tech industry lost 540,000 jobs last year -- the
workforce
dropped to 6 million, according to a study by AeA, a high-tech trade
association. Called "Cyberstates 2003: A State-by-State Overview of the
High-Technology Industry," the study illustrates some not-so-surprising
regional trends.
[snip ]

You may not yet have noticed that the highpaid jobs were shifted to 3rd
world countries to reduce the cost. While there are some countries
that just have a lot of of coffee beans there are others who have the
engineers. Such as India and China. In order to remain competitive,
you (yes!) also have to reduce the cost.

This means try to restart with 1/5 th of the previous salary.

Rene
--
Or going and doing something smarter than everyone else and charging wads of

dough for the privilege. Then, when any schmoe can do this new 'thing',
export the job to some overly grateful foreigner and go do something else
smarter. (Re-iterate ad infinitum). I believe it is what made USA
pre-eminent.

Ken

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Ken Taylor wrote:

"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:40921c1c$0$701$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch...

Rolavine wrote:

Click here: TechExtreme - Tech Jobs - Tech Job Losses Mount

"The U.S. high-tech industry lost 540,000 jobs last year -- the

workforce

dropped to 6 million, according to a study by AeA, a high-tech trade
association. Called "Cyberstates 2003: A State-by-State Overview of the
High-Technology Industry," the study illustrates some not-so-surprising
regional trends.

[snip ]

You may not yet have noticed that the highpaid jobs were shifted to 3rd
world countries to reduce the cost. While there are some countries
that just have a lot of of coffee beans there are others who have the
engineers. Such as India and China. In order to remain competitive,
you (yes!) also have to reduce the cost.

This means try to restart with 1/5 th of the previous salary.

Or going and doing something smarter than everyone else and charging wads of
dough for the privilege. Then, when any schmoe can do this new 'thing',
export the job to some overly grateful foreigner and go do something else
smarter. (Re-iterate ad infinitum). I believe it is what made USA
pre-eminent.

This certainly is an idea worth to consider. The others are are no
dummies either though. May they be from the US or foreigners.

Rene

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 23:34:33 +1200, "Ken Taylor" <ken@home.nz> wrote:

[snip]

Or going and doing something smarter than everyone else and charging wads of
dough for the privilege. Then, when any schmoe can do this new 'thing',
export the job to some overly grateful foreigner and go do something else
smarter. (Re-iterate ad infinitum). I believe it is what made USA
pre-eminent.

Ken

Absolutely. I ran the hybrid line at Dickson Electronics for three
years that way... playing hit a market and then run.

Got me fired though. The "boss" didn't take to me operating as if he
didn't exist ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John Larkin]

On 30 Apr 2004 07:08:36 GMT, rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:

Subject: Re: Bush and our Future
From: John Larkin jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com
Date: 4/29/2004 9:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <rdm390d9shgv7c11avlibu2moie1rpmei4@4ax.com

On 29 Apr 2004 16:13:04 GMT, rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:


Most of my competition is out of business and I'm just paying the bills.
There
are a dozen huge facilites around the Portland Oregon area that are closed
up
now.


What sort of business are you in?

Blame the illusory dot.com misallocation of resources and the stock
market bubble... it took the last half of the 1990s to put that mess
into place, and will take a while to fix. Actually, the US
unemployment rate is fairly low and dropping... about 5.6% I think,
well below the average rate of the 1990s. France and Germany are
running close to 10.

Why blame Bush? Presidents mostly take the credit or get the blame,
but can't influence the economy a lot, especially in the short term.

We had too many programmers (actually, webbies) anyhow.

John


I'm a one man band electronic engineering business, 15 years on my own.

This economy has lost about 3 million jobs during the Bush years. Bush gave
across the board tax cuts. This did not result in making many new jobs in the
US. By giving investors tax cuts for investing in our hardest hit sectors, many
of these job losses could have been avoided. The tax cuts manipulated the
economy by putting more money in the hands of the rich. They did not invest in
US High Tech, and your reasons are valid. However, based on the articles I
quoted in this thread, about 700,000 tech jobs were lost. This is a
disproportionally high number out of the 3 million jobs lost, considering that
High Tech only has about 6 million workers.

So, why blame Bush, he gave about 250 billion dollars of tax cuts, his claim
was that it would stimulate the economy, the result was still 3 million jobs
lost. So, Bush failed with his plan. Many economists, including Nobel prize
winners, said it would not work, and they were right. To stimulate the creation
of jobs you have to be a little more selective about the process of throwing
money.

You fault B2 for not spending money to create more tech jobs.
Coincidentally, that's the area you work in. I'd expect the Strip Club
Owners of America could make an identical argument.

Kerry has talked about this point.

What would he know about jobs? All he ever did was marry rich older
women. That's not a viable economic recovery plan, because there
aren't enough ROWs to go around.

John

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:40:17 -0700) it happened "Richard Henry"
<rphenry@home.com> wrote in <Shokc.3234$fE.483@fed1read02>:

I recently lost my job due to cutbacks in a high-tech company.

On the other hand, my 401(K) is doing so well since then that I consider
myself retired.
But do you not think that now society is missing your genius input and

help, it will crumble, and the defence will crumble too, and the Iraqis
will take over? ;-)
X

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Ken Taylor wrote:

Or going and doing something smarter than everyone else and charging wads of
dough for the privilege. Then, when any schmoe can do this new 'thing',
export the job to some overly grateful foreigner and go do something else
smarter. (Re-iterate ad infinitum). I believe it is what made USA
pre-eminent.

Just in case you were wondering ...

Foreign policies matter a lot too.

Eg when Nylon was discovered, the only fibre with matching if not
surpassing properties was hemp. The US subsequently was rather
effective to declare it as drug worldwide and let it disappear.
A side effect was bangladesh which was built physically on hemp,
it got washed away and actually still is being washed away with
every flood.

Next are the installation of dictators in numerous thirld world
countries to let the US companies plunder the riches and the work
force for peanuts.

Next are the numerous terror commands sent into the thirld world
to terrorize the workers unions, such that they don't band together
and keep on picking the bananas for peanuts.
This now luckily has an end since the courrageous GWB declared
the war on terror. And the rest of the world will watch closely
when the US sends some terrorists around the world. Such as we're
watching Iraq closely where US based terror groups act.
Even though some may call them private security companies,
they are operating outside the local law.


Rene

 

[JeffM]

But this would just perpetuate the massive over-investment
that caused the current problem in the tech sector.
Ken Taylor

High Tech only has about 6 million workers.
Rocky Rolavine

Because that's where the most over-investment was. Remember how everyone
thought it was a really good idea to put everything possible into tech,
coz that's where heaps of moolah was to be made?

The wild swing of the economic pendulem (irrational exuberance)
hasn't swung back, however.
Post-bubble, all the VCs want to hit a grand slam at every at-bat.
Capitalism is supposed to reward RISK,
but these guys won't poke their necks out.

from The Curse of the Hundred Bagger:
Why Venture Capitalists Are Paralyzed and Our Economy is Stagnant
by Robert X. Cringely
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040304.html

"[The Venture Capital community] love to be told that
they are the engine that keeps the economy running,
but ask them to act like that engine and they won't."

 

[Richard Henry]

"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6u4f3$4hk$1@news.wplus.net...

On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:40:17 -0700) it happened "Richard
Henry"
rphenry@home.com> wrote in <Shokc.3234$fE.483@fed1read02>:
I recently lost my job due to cutbacks in a high-tech company.

On the other hand, my 401(K) is doing so well since then that I consider
myself retired.
But do you not think that now society is missing your genius input and
help, it will crumble, and the defence will crumble too, and the Iraqis
will take over? ;-)

As long as the account stays healthy, who cares?

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:4092cb16$0$704$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch...

Ken Taylor wrote:

Or going and doing something smarter than everyone else and charging
wads of
dough for the privilege. Then, when any schmoe can do this new 'thing',
export the job to some overly grateful foreigner and go do something
else
smarter. (Re-iterate ad infinitum). I believe it is what made USA
pre-eminent.

Just in case you were wondering ...

Foreign policies matter a lot too.

Eg when Nylon was discovered, the only fibre with matching if not
surpassing properties was hemp. The US subsequently was rather
effective to declare it as drug worldwide and let it disappear.
A side effect was bangladesh which was built physically on hemp,
it got washed away and actually still is being washed away with
every flood.

Next are the installation of dictators in numerous thirld world
countries to let the US companies plunder the riches and the work
force for peanuts.

Next are the numerous terror commands sent into the thirld world
to terrorize the workers unions, such that they don't band together
and keep on picking the bananas for peanuts.
This now luckily has an end since the courrageous GWB declared
the war on terror. And the rest of the world will watch closely
when the US sends some terrorists around the world. Such as we're
watching Iraq closely where US based terror groups act.
Even though some may call them private security companies,
they are operating outside the local law.


Rene

I don't know what you've been drinking, but I'll have a double.

Ken