Driver to drive?

>"Timothy Noah's book - The Great Divergence - talks about how the US became less >equal over the last thirty years, and how they might become more equal if they >wanted to. "

Of course that is a foregone conclusion. Seriously too obvoopus to bother to read really.

Those at the top do not want equality and they have the power to effect their will.

Those at the bottom want equality but do not have the power to effect their will.

In other words, money talks, and in the US I would say it talks the oudest. Louder than morals, louder than the common good, louder than world peace, luder than the condition of the planet itself.

Come on, are they fracking sdown under ? Where else are the yfracking other than the US ? That is the most blatant example of disregard for the environment in the world.

 

You seem to be missing something. There is only so much demand.

Yes, Henry Ford increased production by (further) developing the assembly line and doing as much as possible in house. But even though he used people, he used less of them to make more cars.

Someone has to buy those cars. Back 200 years ago, people in the south thought they needed slaves becasue either the Men around owuldn't do the work, or they had the misguided notion that slavery wold save them money. Actually it only works when they breed, but that is beside the point. Even then there were able and willing people who could not find work.

The only way to counter the effects of incresed production per Man hour is to increase demand. Right now, demand is overmet, meaning more than fully met. A tually the demand is there, it is the money that isn't because of our McJobs and unemployment. And there is no way to change that now. There is no going back.

Somethiong has to sell or there will soon be no company to provide any jobs, so what is the solution ? Well, in electronics we have planned obsolescence as well as designs made to fail soon. However, you rally aren't going to have much luck building a car that only lasts a year or two. The market simply won't support it.

Then there is the option of populatin reduction. there are ways to do that, like war for example. But see then demand is decreased. It just won't work..

And no, the solution is not to get rid of automated manufacturing because not only was that a on way trip, you simply are not going back to havking a roomfull of turret lathes working on camshafts. Now only oculd you not force business to do that, if they did it would destroy the stock market. There would be no dividends anymore which would cost alot of people their retirement.

You also can't just pass out money. We saw what that did to the still emergent welfare class. You get generations of them. Five kids, then 25 kids, then 125 kids. And so forth. We are witnessing this so forth.

So, what's your bright idea ?

Also, I never used the word "evil". There is no such thing. It is a fact of life, automation is here and that's that.

You can build more product, but who pays for it ? the Keynesians think the government can just tax and throw that money into the economy through hiring peole for public works and shit, but do not realize it will always be a net loss. Pushing the same pile of money around. Of course they are creating mney at an alarming rate, to the point where the world is going to abandon the petrodollar, for economic reasns, not just political. They will all come home to roost and we will need a wheelbarrell full of moneey to buy a loaf of bread. Remember what happened last time ?

We need mony coming in from other sources to balance what we buy. That is called trade. For the larger part, the US is a consumer and the rst of the world is a vendor. This cannot go on forever.

Even Germany with its high standard of living out produces us. Bitch about China taking away "american" jobs ? How come Germany doens't have such a big problem with that ?

You got anything that even resembles a solutionI am all ears, and probably able to shoot down any idea. It just doesn't work. Even with strict population control, all kinds of measures, the only way to make it work will be some form of socialism or communism. I do not like either prospect but there will NEVEER be enough jobs. If China burned to the ground right now, and all the jobs came back, oit would not be enough. For a time, rebuilding the infrastructure and factories and all that, once thos jobs are done, they are done. You are left with the workers in the factories and then, the unemployment returns.

Like I said - any bright ideas ?

And yes I guess I did usae alot of words. I wanted to drive the point home. I notice you decided to quote all of them...

But YOU miss the point of the lack of enough demand to support anything even near full employment.

Can't be done. And Luddism won't work either. While it seems to work for the Amish for example, they are a tiny segment of the population with a huge market.

I am all ears. (figuratively of course)

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 05:12:51 +0000 (UTC), mroberds@att.net wrote:

Ah, a diazo copier. I first, and last, used one in high school drafting
class, around 1989. I remember that it was the first time I had seen a
peristaltic pump, and that after several guys had made copies on it, the
ammonia fumes would start to fill the room. The usual remedy was to
open the windows, even in January in Kansas City. Who needs OSHA or a
MSDS, anyway.

Kinda sounds like your machine had a clogged ammonia fumes filter. I
ran a print shop for a short while that had several machines that ran
on ammonium hydroxide. You could smell it when filling or cleaning,
but not when operating.
<http://www.diazit.com>
<http://www.diazit.com/#!spare-parts/c21hp>
Note the availability of non-ammonia developer. I never used any
because it was too expensive.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteprint#The_diazo_printing_process>

Just then, a person in the same position showed up, and
admitted that he had taken it home over the weekend to watch the ball
game.

My father owned a lingerie factory as I was trying to grow up. He had
the same complaint about me borrowing and occasionally returning
tools, which I used mostly to keep my junk car going.

I found one of my layouts from 1985:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/PCB-Layout/

In the flesh, but as Rev D, as opposed to the Rev B artwork above:
http://www.amazon.com/Ftg-Data-Systems-SYSTEMS-PXL-350/dp/B00456W0L2

Yep, that's it. I didn't do Rev D. My father had a stroke about this
time and I became unavailable.

In June 1986, you could get this board, an FT-156 light pen, *and* a
free copy of Windows (about what it was worth, then), for the low low
price of $349! Roughly $760 today, according to the bls.gov calculator,
so probably even more than that. Source: ad in the June 10, 1986 "PC
Magazine", probably not available at
http://books.google.com/books?id=pDGnxFyejN4C&lpg=PA313&ots=DAVcJi5l05&pg=PA313#v=onepage&f=false
or maybe even http://is.gd/0iHSD5 .

That was an ad prior to the delayed release date of Windoze 2.0 in Dec
1987:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2.0>
Microsoft (MS) was having a hard time selling people on the idea that
they needed Windoze and getting accessory vendors to support Windoze.
At the time, Windoze sucked so my RAM and CPU cycles, that there was
little left for the program. (Remember TopView)? Command line DOS
was good enough for most users.

The MS plan was to bundle a free copy of Windoze 2.0 with computers
and accessory manufacturers in order to get customers used to the idea
of using Windoze. MS made the add-on and accessory card manufacturers
are really good offer. If they would write Windoze drivers for their
products, MS would give them a free Windoze license and packaged
product that would be bundled with the accessory card. All we had to
do was write the drivers. The price was right, the opportunities
looked good, the risks seemed minimal, so we went for it. The board
design was cleaned up and considerable effort was spent writing
Windoze 2.0 drivers for the card. Incidentally, the problem wasn't
Windoze or the card. It was that IBM had made a big mistake in the
light pen BIOS support and left it unfixed. Different PC
manufacturers had different ways of fixing (or ignoring) the problem,
resulting in some unexpected complexity.

As the launch day for Windoze 2.0 approached, we were getting ready.
Boards were being built, packaging designed, promotional literature
printed, sales pitches orchestrated, press releases fabricated, ads
placed in magazines, retail sales arranged, etc. We had everything
except the physical copy of Windoze 2.0, which had to wait until MS
was ready to ship (after numerous delays). What could possibly go
wrong?

What happened was that Microsoft president Jon Shirley changed his
mind at the last moment:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Shirley>
The deadline for getting the drivers onto the distribution floppies
was about 3 months before the original planned release date, so MS
already had all the drivers that they needed. No need to honor their
part of the bargain. MS decided to sell Windoze 2.0 retail, and left
their formerly loyal hardware accessory manufacturers with nothing. Of
course, the large PC manufacturers bundled Windoze, the first of which
was not coincidentally Jon Shirley's former employer, Tandy. I lost
track of what happened after that as I was busy running the family
lingerie business at the time.

Lesson learned: Microsoft cannot be trusted.

I don't recall the prices, but $350 sounds about right for the time.
Please note that a complete 1986 vintage PC/AT system of the day cost
about $3,000 to $6,000.
<http://pctimeline.info/ibmpc/ibm1987.htm>


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 22 September 2014 06:40:09 UTC+10, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

"But how would you achieve a more egalitarian income distribution? "

The only way is to have more jobs than people, and that will never happen.. The fact is that Kudd was right, but he was misunderstood by many. A lot of people think he was against all kinds of technological advancement and science, but that is not true. He was against those machines which replaced human labor, at least in most cases.

And, as I said, h was right. Now with advanced methods, one person can do the work of ten. What happens to the other nine ? What CAN happen to the other nine?

What happened during the Industrial Revolution - they do new and different jobs.

New techology may automate old jobs, but it also offers consumers new services, many of which require human input.

A CNC machine does things a human operator simply could not at all, and those things the huaman operator could do, the CNC usually does better. If parts for jet engines were made on manual machines, they would be falling out of the sky. They do sometimes, like that pilot who landed th commercial jet in the ocean up near New York - that was multiple compressor stalls, a known flaw in that type of engine. Yes, it is no secret, but just not widely publicised because it might hut the airlines' business. At least the ones using plans with that type of engine.

But the problem there is in the design, and the actual design was probably done in Germany and I might just now be the process engineer. The process does not cause compressor stalls.

But now, this is coming to Germany. they enjoyed a lot of prosperity for a time because they had the market. The FOREIGN market. For a time, probably half of the fuel injectors in cars were made in Germany, and that is a minimum of one, usually four or six, sometimes eight and possibly up to sixteen or more. Per engine.

However, what happens now ? It is a winning business so that means others are going to get into it. SO they have already cut back to a four day work week being considered full time, but there aren't even that many of those. Now the got what they call "McJobs", a term for a job that pays decent probably per hour, but is so part time you can't make ends meet. If you make $100 an hour, you cannot live independently on five hours a month. That is an exaggeration of course, but should illustrate the point.

What that means is that business owners are reaping the profit from the machine rather than the Man. If you no longer have 100 people working for you, and you're down to ten, you do not pay them ten times as much. Even if you did, they are not going to give most of that money away. And you shouldn't pay them ten times as much, you have millions in machinery to amortize. On that there is probably interest, or at least lost dividends you could have made investing. A lot of companies do that but should not. In a way, money has become a machine. Many retirement funds are funded by dividends etc. This is where it went wrong. A car company should not have to be a venture capitalist, vulnerable to market stresses.

Why not? The whole point of the free market is that it moves goods and services around to the highest bidder. As technology changes old businesses shrink and new business spring up, offering services that were previously too expensive to attract many customers.

Central planning doesn't work well when technology isn't changing all that rapidly. It does even worse when innovation becomes popular.

> This is what caused problms for some car companies on 2008. What, did a shitload of people get refunds and return their new cars ? Did people stop buying altogether six months before the crash ? Hell no. If they would have stuck to building cars and nothing else, they would have been fine most likely. the problem is the unions got them to have to pay people not to work. In my hindsight, I would have gone out of business and seen how they liked it. I would tell the unions "We will take any deductions you want out of their checks per their consent. YOU deal with the money". If it was that way it would have been the unions who needed a bailout.

Any experienced employee is an asset. There's no point in paying them not to work if you don't expect to need them again, but keeping them on a retainer so they don't go off and retrain for a different job may make sense during a brief recession. Training someone new up to the same level of competence is expensive - you have to pay them the industry rate, but it takes a while before they are as productive as an experienced worker.

But the people are a big part of the problem. Semi-educated Arabs for example come here, and in a number of years they own convenience stores, bars, grocery stores, restaurants, machine shops. And people say "Well they stick together". OK, yes they do. WELL WHY DON'T WE ?

The ills of this country are so grave that I simply gave up trying to figure out a solution. Until people change, noting is going to change. People do not vote for the good of the country, they vote for their own good. No exceptions, rich or poor. The poor will vote for more welfare and the rich will vote for less taxes. And the politicians have learned very well how to pander to this effect. Not that they actually deliver anything good of course.

The German and Scandinavian politicians have delivered better solutions than the US ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

> So much for that. The soapbox is open.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 22 September 2014 06:45:49 UTC+10, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

"Timothy Noah's book - The Great Divergence - talks about how the US became less equal over the last thirty years, and how they might become more equal if they wanted to. "

Of course that is a foregone conclusion. Seriously too obvious to bother to read really.

Those at the top do not want equality and they have the power to effect their will.

Those at the bottom want equality but do not have the power to effect their will.

In other words, money talks, and in the US I would say it talks the loudest. Louder than morals, louder than the common good, louder than world peace, louder than the condition of the planet itself.

What Timothy Noah brings out was that from the end of the Depression to about 1970, the US became more egalitarian. The political structures didn't change - though TV advertising had become a potent political force by the end of that period.

For some forty-odd years the people with money practiced enlightened self-interest, and lived with a smaller share of what became a much bigger pie - they sacrificed short term gain in the justified hope of doing better in the long term.

> Come on, are they fracking down under? Where else are the fracking other than the US ? That is the most blatant example of disregard for the environment in the world.

Fracking is going on in Australia. The difference between fracking in the US and fracking in Australia is that the mining companies in Australia are constrained only to fracture geological structures that are deep enough that there's no risk of the fractures extending up to the surface, or close enough to the surface to contaminate the ground-water. We've learned from US mistakes.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[rickman]

On 9/21/2014 4:40 PM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"But how would you achieve a more egalitarian income distribution?"

The only way is to have more jobs than people, and that will never happen. The fact is that Kudd was right, but he was misunderstood by many. Alot of peolee tink he was against all kinds of technological advancement and science, but thet is not true. He was against those machines which replaced human labor, at least in most cases.

And, as I said, h was right. Now with advanced methods, one person can do the work of ten. What happens to the other nine ? What CAN happen to the other nine ?

A CNC machine does things a human operator simply could not at all, and those things the huaman operator could do, the CNC usually does better. If parts for jet engines were made on manual machines, they would be falling out of the sky. They do sometimes, like that pilot who landed th commercial jet in the ocean up near New York - that was multiple compressor stalls, a known flaw in that type of engine. Yes, it is no secret, but just not widely publicised because it might hut the airlines' business. At least the ones using plans with that type of engine.

But the problem there is in the design, and the actual design was probably don in Germany and I might just now the process engineer. The process does not cause compressor stalls.

But now, this is coming to Germany. they enjoyed alot of prosperity for a time beecause they had the market. The FOREIGN market. For a time, probably half of the fuel injectors in cars were made in Germany, and that is a minimum of one, usually four or six, sometimes eight and possibly up to sixteen or more. Per engine.

However, what happens now ? Itis a winning business so that means others are going to get into it. SO they have already cut back to a four day work week being considered ful time, but there aren't even that many of those. Now the got what they call "McJobs", a term for a job that pays decent probably per hour, butis so part time you can't make ends meet. If you make $100 an hour, you cannot live independently on five hours a month. That is an exaggeration of course, but should illustrate the point.

What that means is that busoiness owners are reaping the profit from the machine rather than the Man. If you no longer have 100 peole working for you, and you're down to ten, you do not pay them ten times as much. Even if you did, they are not going to give most of that money away. And you shouldn't pay them ten times as much, you have millions in machinery to amortize. On that there is probably interest, or at least lost dividends you could have made investing. Alot of companies do that but should not. In a way, money has become a machine. Many retirement funds are funded by dividends etc. This is where it went wrong. A car company should not have to be a venture capitalist, vulnerable to market streeses.

This is what caused problms for some car companies on 2008. What, did a shitload of people get refunds and return their new cars ? Did people stop buying altogether six months before the crash ? Hell no. If they would have stuick to building cars and noting else, thy would have been fine most likely.. the problem is the unions got them to have ot pay people not to work. In my hindsight, I would have gone out of businss and se how they loike it. I would tell the unions "We will take any deductions you want out of their checks per their consent. YOU deal with the money". If it was that way it would have been the unions who needed a bailout.

But the people are a big part of the problem. Semi-inducated Arabs for example come here, and in a nuber of years they own convenience stores, bars, grociery stores, restaurants, machine shops. And people say "Well they stick together". OK, yes they do. WELL WHY DON'T WE ?

The ills of this country are so grave that I simply gave up trying to figure out a solution. Unitl people change, noting is going to changee. Peple do not vote for the good of the country, they vote for the good of them self. No exceptions, rich or poor. the poor will vote for more welfare and the rich will vote for less taxes. And the politicians have learned very well how to pander to this effect. Not that they actually deliver anything good of course.

So much for that. The soapbox is open.

Wow, so much talk and so little said.

Machines make people more efficient and so goods cost less and become
more available. Example... In the early 1900's cars were very pricey
and only the well off could afford them. Henry Ford used mass
production methods to make more cars with less people with the result
that cars were cheaper and he sold more... a LOT more. Most likely he
also employed many more people than if he had used artisan labor as the
others did at that time.

So this is an example of how machines not only provide goods for more
people, but result in more people being employed.

When you talk about the evil of machines that replace human labor you
aren't looking at the full picture. The reality is that people just
shouldn't be doing work that can be done by a machine. They need
training so they can do work that can't be done by machine.

The sort of jobs that can be made part time only are again the sort of
jobs that aren't very difficult for people to do. If we could we would
let machines do those. Until then we will have unskilled people doing
them and being treated like machines.

--

Rick

 

>"You post so many words and say so little. Try to be more concise please. "

I have been concise - and misunderstood. Noww I try to be more detailed.

>"Your mistake is assuming demand is fixed in an absolute sense."

I do not assume that. I do assert that without money, especially on most cases disposable money, demand doesn't do a thing forya. People will buy food, but not my gizwhicher.

"If your method of analyzing things were valid there would be one person
working and everyone else starving and running around naked because all
the advances and improvements in efficiency would still only be making
one shirt a season and growing enough corn to feed one family. "

No, but for there to be jobs, there must be demand and money. People already got so much junk they are giving it away, even throwing it away. And their houses are full of junk, well not everyone. One TV show of sahichI am aware is "Hoarders". ALL of the episodes are in the US as far as I now. These people live in mountains of junk consumer goods. For the level of demand necessary to support this level of produxction and keep most peole working, veryone would have to be a hoarder. What's more, whn I see that show I wonder where all the money comes from. Seriously. In some cases it was a realestate winsdfall, inheritance, whatever. Yah, that is all over the place. there aree not enough people ABLE to be hoarders to support this.

Also, I said Ludd was right. No way is the world going to operate like that and I explained why.

 

>"Fracking is going on in Australia. The difference between fracking in the US >and fracking in Australia is that the mining companies in Australia are >constrained only to fracture geological structures that are deep enough that >there's no risk of the fractures extending up to the surface, or close enough to >the surface to contaminate the ground-water. We've learned from US mistakes. "

I was going to say too bad the US didn't, but they know. They just do not care. The chemicals used here are harmful to people's kidneys especially and some have been contaminated. Nephrologists are under a gag order not to discuss the effects of these chemicals with their patients. This is because the specific chemical formula is supposedly a "trade secret". I'm sure they could just use water, but would make less moiney that way.

Another example of the axiom in the US - money talks. I heard a coupl of states have outlawed it. Now watch the lawsuits fly and a bunch of lawyers get richer.

And you think this is pessimistic ? Nope, realistic.

 

[rickman]

On 9/21/2014 5:44 PM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

You seem to be missing something. There is only so much demand.

Yes, Henry Ford increased production by (further) developing the assembly line and doing as much as possible in house. But even though he used people, he used less of them to make more cars.

Someone has to buy those cars. Back 200 years ago, people in the south thought they needed slaves becasue either the Men around owuldn't do the work, or they had the misguided notion that slavery wold save them money. Actually it only works when they breed, but that is beside the point. Even then there were able and willing people who could not find work.

The only way to counter the effects of incresed production per Man hour is to increase demand. Right now, demand is overmet, meaning more than fully met. A tually the demand is there, it is the money that isn't because of our McJobs and unemployment. And there is no way to change that now. There is no going back.

Somethiong has to sell or there will soon be no company to provide any jobs, so what is the solution ? Well, in electronics we have planned obsolescence as well as designs made to fail soon. However, you rally aren't going to have much luck building a car that only lasts a year or two. The market simply won't support it.

Then there is the option of populatin reduction. there are ways to do that, like war for example. But see then demand is decreased. It just won't work.

And no, the solution is not to get rid of automated manufacturing because not only was that a on way trip, you simply are not going back to havking a roomfull of turret lathes working on camshafts. Now only oculd you not force business to do that, if they did it would destroy the stock market. There would be no dividends anymore which would cost alot of people their retirement.

You also can't just pass out money. We saw what that did to the still emergent welfare class. You get generations of them. Five kids, then 25 kids, then 125 kids. And so forth. We are witnessing this so forth.

So, what's your bright idea ?

Also, I never used the word "evil". There is no such thing. It is a fact of life, automation is here and that's that.

You can build more product, but who pays for it ? the Keynesians think the government can just tax and throw that money into the economy through hiring peole for public works and shit, but do not realize it will always be a net loss. Pushing the same pile of money around. Of course they are creating mney at an alarming rate, to the point where the world is going to abandon the petrodollar, for economic reasns, not just political. They will all come home to roost and we will need a wheelbarrell full of moneey to buy a loaf of bread. Remember what happened last time ?

We need mony coming in from other sources to balance what we buy. That is called trade. For the larger part, the US is a consumer and the rst of the world is a vendor. This cannot go on forever.

Even Germany with its high standard of living out produces us. Bitch about China taking away "american" jobs ? How come Germany doens't have such a big problem with that ?

You got anything that even resembles a solutionI am all ears, and probably able to shoot down any idea. It just doesn't work. Even with strict population control, all kinds of measures, the only way to make it work will be some form of socialism or communism. I do not like either prospect but there will NEVEER be enough jobs. If China burned to the ground right now, and all the jobs came back, oit would not be enough. For a time, rebuilding the infrastructure and factories and all that, once thos jobs are done, they are done. You are left with the workers in the factories and then, the unemployment returns.

Like I said - any bright ideas ?

And yes I guess I did usae alot of words. I wanted to drive the point home. I notice you decided to quote all of them...

But YOU miss the point of the lack of enough demand to support anything even near full employment.

Can't be done. And Luddism won't work either. While it seems to work for the Amish for example, they are a tiny segment of the population with a huge market.

I am all ears. (figuratively of course)

You post so many words and say so little. Try to be more concise please.

Your mistake is assuming demand is fixed in an absolute sense. In
reality the improved efficiency results in lowered costs so everyone can
have more.

Look at it this way. You have a fixed size labor pool... that is the
only thing that is truly fixed. They are all working on growing corn
and everyone is fed. Someone finds a seed that produces twice as much
corn in half the space needing half the workers to grow it. Do half the
workers starve now? No, because there is the same corn. Only now the
other half can grow cotton and make cloth and dye the threads...

Then someone invents the cotton gin and we have half of the cotton
workers free to invent the car and Henry Ford is born...

If your method of analyzing things were valid there would be one person
working and everyone else starving and running around naked because all
the advances and improvements in efficiency would still only be making
one shirt a season and growing enough corn to feed one family.

--

Rick

 

>"Wow! That is total BS. Tell me about this gag order."

This was Pennsylvania. I'd have never hard of it except for one doctor went to court to get an exclusion. Read this :

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/07/01/federal-court-dismisses-doctors-lawsuit-over-act-13-gag-rule/

 

[rickman]

On 9/21/2014 10:09 PM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"You post so many words and say so little. Try to be more concise please."

I have been concise - and misunderstood. Noww I try to be more detailed.

"Your mistake is assuming demand is fixed in an absolute sense."

I do not assume that. I do assert that without money, especially on most cases disposable money, demand doesn't do a thing forya. People will buy food, but not my gizwhicher.

"There is only so much demand."

So how is this not fixed demand?

The issue is not that demand is limited. Your are looking at economics
through a peep hole, one point at a time. If production becomes more
efficient and needs less people to produce the same goods you can also
look at the fact that the same people will produce MORE goods and
services. But that wouldn't fit your theory would it?

In the end everything has a value in how much human effort is involved
in producing it. Unless a resource is scarce, everything else can be
equated to the cost of human effort. Do more with less people and we
all have more in the end.

I state again, that if your theory were right all the huge improvements
over the years would have resulted in nearly everyone being laid off and
only a very small portion of the population working. History has proved
you wrong already.

"If your method of analyzing things were valid there would be one person
working and everyone else starving and running around naked because all
the advances and improvements in efficiency would still only be making
one shirt a season and growing enough corn to feed one family. "

No, but for there to be jobs, there must be demand and money. People already got so much junk they are giving it away, even throwing it away. And their houses are full of junk, well not everyone. One TV show of sahichI am aware is "Hoarders". ALL of the episodes are in the US as far as I now. These people live in mountains of junk consumer goods. For the level of demand necessary to support this level of produxction and keep most peole working, veryone would have to be a hoarder. What's more, whn I see that show I wonder where all the money comes from. Seriously. In some cases it was a realestate winsdfall, inheritance, whatever. Yah, that is all over the place. there aree not enough people ABLE to be hoarders to support this.

So the basis of your economic theory is the cable show "Hoarders"?

> Also, I said Ludd was right. No way is the world going to operate like that and I explained why.

Like what? Your explanations so far have been long winded and based on
wrong assumptions. The world economy stands as a contradiction of your
theory.

--

Rick

 

[rickman]

On 9/22/2014 1:31 AM, rickman wrote:

On 9/22/2014 12:37 AM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
"Wow! That is total BS. Tell me about this gag order."

This was Pennsylvania. I'd have never hard of it except for one doctor
went to court to get an exclusion. Read this :

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/07/01/federal-court-dismisses-doctors-lawsuit-over-act-13-gag-rule/


"But some doctors say language in the law prohibits them from sharing
that information with their patients and with other doctors."

This is the basis for your claim of a gag order? A newspaper report of
something a doctor said... So what does anyone else say? What does the
law say?

I saw your post and it is far too long and winding for me to go through.
I did some searching on my own and found some quotes of the bill's
sponsor.

"Under Act 13, sponsored by state Rep. Brian Ellis, a Republican,
doctors must enter into a verbal acknowledgment [with drilling
companies] that the information may not be used for purposes other than
the health needs asserted and that the health professional shall
maintain the information as confidential.

According to Jerry Silberman, a spokesman for the medical professionals
union, the confidentiality clause acts as a gag order. The law is
written in such a way, he said, that If a doctor suspects a patient
suffers from symptoms brought about by fracking, the doctor isn't
legally allowed to inform the patient of those suspicions.

The law's sponsor, Ellis, said this isn't the case. The legislation
requires that drillers give the state's Department of Environmental
Protection information about exactly what chemicals are being used in
their drilling processes, Ellis said, adding that medical professionals
will be allowed to obtain this information, which they could then use to
help treat patients."

Another reference says the info can be put into the medical records
which you are legally entitled to receive.

--

Rick

 

I had it but didn't boomark it, the transcript of the case. If interested just look for Alphonse Rodriguez and somewhere in there it will be. I did a quick search and while there are are plenty of hit, the actual case is liable to be pages down on the results by now.

There are alot more nasties in US law, and of course in state and city laws of course. Mainly designed to increase revenue. One notable was the farm to fork people. Eventually they got to a supeerior court. Not sure now it may be Wisconsin. In that one, these people with farms had a big duinner and everyone was invitied. Then came the officers to harrass. Through that somehow I foud a case in a superior court where the judge ruled that people do not have the fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice. The reason given was that they had not PROVEN that right, so the court erred against people's rights, simply because it had not been proven. You would think in a free society it would be the other way.

There is alot of shit that is not really provable. To have a link on the internet someone has to put it on the internet. In the Dr. Rodriguez case, earlier sites had a dirct link to a .pa.us site, or whatever the official Pennsylvania site is. Those do not disappear, but the references to them do. In my old PC I had a shitload of bookmarks to such things but they got lost.

Lately I am getting a little tired of it. Call it apathy if you want, but no matter how much evidence you throw at some people they just won't belive the government does wrong. Won't believe motivations that are apparent once one has enough data. I didn't used to believe what scum they are, but after all this time I am completely convinced.

We had a restauranteur who got thrown in jail for importing lobsters from Honduras that were improperly packed. He didn't pack them. We got a gun dealer who had never set foot in Mexico for selling a gun by mail order, which is legal, but left in a higher capactiy magazine. Reciprocity I understand, and maybe he should be tried, HERE. then you all know the Assange deal. They brought down the equivalnt of another country's AF1 to try to get Assange, who had never set foot on US soil.

I could go on for a damn long time (you know that ha) but the pattern is there. They want their secrets kept and they want all our secrets. Comspiracy theory ? Well, if there's nothing going on that we would not like being done WITH OUR TAX MONEY, why all the secrecy ? Why are the details of the TPP so secret ?

And if it is just for domestic purposes, why do they spy on the whole world ? Why do Narus and Verint, both companies founded by Israelis get all this intel literally before the US does ? One of them got sold real quick before they got a contract with the NSA.

And then there is the NDAA. Care to twll me where the goo dintent is there, when it includes US Citizens ?

But this is all not new. Many years ago the Trading With The Enemy Act was modified to include US Citizens as enemies.

And, after 1929, how many bankers went to jail ? After 2008, how many baners went to jail ? you see what they did this time ? Now through proxy they are buying up foreclosures, renting them out and selling that income as investments. Now, they still make money, but renters never get any equity.

Who was it ? Thomas Jefferson ? 'By inflation and deflation they will wake up homeless in the land their Fathers fought for', something like that. The housing bubble was CAUSED. ON PURPOSE. What is the Latin ? Que bono or something like that ? Who benefits ?

Who benefits ? Who gets more wealth ? Who gets more power. Every time. Not some of the time, not most of the time, all the time.

I have been watching for a long time, and that is why I am in this world I'm in. Know what ? Want to be happy ? Forget about it. Live and die in what you are used to and let your kids worry about the consequences. Like of them creating $80 billion a month out of thin air to prop up the markets so they don't drop[ and the commoner can get his money the hell oput of there. And to what end ?

The next planneed market crash. That way they get your money too. The mo' money plan dude. that is how they operate. And they will never stop because it is an addiction for them. I can see this because I have seen too much.

I almost wish I hadn't.

 

[rickman]

On 9/22/2014 12:37 AM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"Wow! That is total BS. Tell me about this gag order."

This was Pennsylvania. I'd have never hard of it except for one doctor went to court to get an exclusion. Read this :

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/07/01/federal-court-dismisses-doctors-lawsuit-over-act-13-gag-rule/

"But some doctors say language in the law prohibits them from sharing
that information with their patients and with other doctors."

This is the basis for your claim of a gag order? A newspaper report of
something a doctor said... So what does anyone else say? What does the
law say?

--

Rick

 

[rickman]

On 9/21/2014 10:18 PM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

> Nephrologists are under a gag order not to discuss the effects of these chemicals with their patients.

Wow! That is total BS. Tell me about this gag order. Who ordered it
and who enforces it? Doctor patient confidentiality prevents anyone
from ever knowing what the patient was told.

--

Rick

 

I give up, cannot seem to get that transcript. Actually ANY transcript. I must be going about it the wrong way.

 

>" saw your post and it is far too long ..."

OK fine. But at least you know it is not a figment of my imagination.

Now, what do you suppose the prupose of such a law would be ? Do they think people with bad kidneys are going to go into the fracking business and make for competition ? That would still not be right, but I am pretty sure it is something else.

The possibility of HUGE class action lawsuits.

Did you know that companies that frack are exempt from ALL environmental laws ?

Did you hear about the Monsanto protection law ?

Thereis plnty more but I guess I am going to have to keep my posts short.

 

"Here is some info that includes the actual text of the law and a link to
the law."

That may be the one I had before. The results had a few from that site. I didn't remember which one(s).

 

[rickman]

On 9/22/2014 2:23 AM, rickman wrote:

On 9/22/2014 1:31 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/22/2014 12:37 AM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
"Wow! That is total BS. Tell me about this gag order."

This was Pennsylvania. I'd have never hard of it except for one doctor
went to court to get an exclusion. Read this :

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/07/01/federal-court-dismisses-doctors-lawsuit-over-act-13-gag-rule/



"But some doctors say language in the law prohibits them from sharing
that information with their patients and with other doctors."

This is the basis for your claim of a gag order? A newspaper report of
something a doctor said... So what does anyone else say? What does the
law say?

I saw your post and it is far too long and winding for me to go through.
I did some searching on my own and found some quotes of the bill's
sponsor.

"Under Act 13, sponsored by state Rep. Brian Ellis, a Republican,
doctors must enter into a verbal acknowledgment [with drilling
companies] that the information may not be used for purposes other than
the health needs asserted and that the health professional shall
maintain the information as confidential.

According to Jerry Silberman, a spokesman for the medical professionals
union, the confidentiality clause acts as a gag order. The law is
written in such a way, he said, that If a doctor suspects a patient
suffers from symptoms brought about by fracking, the doctor isn't
legally allowed to inform the patient of those suspicions.

The law's sponsor, Ellis, said this isn't the case. The legislation
requires that drillers give the state's Department of Environmental
Protection information about exactly what chemicals are being used in
their drilling processes, Ellis said, adding that medical professionals
will be allowed to obtain this information, which they could then use to
help treat patients."

Another reference says the info can be put into the medical records
which you are legally entitled to receive.

Forgot to provide the link:
http://www.ibtimes.com/pennsylvania-fracking-bill-puts-gag-order-doctors-union-says-431144


Here is some info that includes the actual text of the law and a link to
the law.

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2012/04/19/what-you-need-to-know-about-act-13s-confidentiality-requirements/

--

Rick

 

[rickman]

On 9/22/2014 2:36 AM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

" saw your post and it is far too long ..."

OK fine. But at least you know it is not a figment of my imagination.

Now, what do you suppose the prupose of such a law would be ? Do they think people with bad kidneys are going to go into the fracking business and make for competition ? That would still not be right, but I am pretty sure it is something else.

The possibility of HUGE class action lawsuits.

Did you know that companies that frack are exempt from ALL environmental laws ?

I don't know about "all" but I do know they are excluded from many and
there may even be legislation that says you can't sue them. I guess
some people think that is good.


> Did you hear about the Monsanto protection law ?

I don't see how that is constitutional. Separation of powers...


> Thereis plnty more but I guess I am going to have to keep my posts short.

Get some sleep. All this will be here tomorrow.

--

Rick