I miss Jobst

On Apr 28, 3:05*am, Helmut Springer wrote:
Yes, but Germany still is in the business of producing and exporting
high value high tech equipment.

That too, does not happen by accident. They realize that a wealthy
society needs to be at the cutting edge of high tech design and
manufacture.

On Apr 28, 5:07*am, Peter Cole wrote:
Tariffs get a lot of debate, probably because they're simple to
implement and understand. Currency exchange rates are much more
complicated and subtle, but with respect to trade, can have exactly the
same effect. In this case, currency and trade implications are just
another case of a virtual imposed tax for the wars that doesn't appear
on the balance sheet. Being the world's reserve currency delivers some
great advantages, but imposes some very real costs. The burden of our
imperial ambitions falls unevenly on different sectors of the American
economy. Some win, some lose. In the manufacturing sector, arms
manufacturers win, other manufacturers mostly lose, but the mechanism is
quite indirect. So what you say is true, but mostly not for the reasons
that most people assume.

Maybe some win and some lose, but as a whole... we lose. I tend to
view the manipulation of currencies and finance as complex methods for
some people to siphon off wealth while doing nothing of real value to
anyone.

The value of what is done seems to get little attention in economics.
Unnecessary money spent on wars, incarceration, financial
manipulations, etc is simply a waste... yet gets the same score for
production as anything else.

On Apr 28, 11:02*am, Ron Ruff wrote:
On Apr 28, 3:05*am, Helmut Springer wrote:

Yes, but Germany still is in the business of producing and exporting
high value high tech equipment.

That too, does not happen by accident. They realize that a wealthy
society needs to be at the cutting edge of high tech design and
manufacture.

And from what I hear, they reinforce that by attaching more status to
technical and scientific careers than does the U.S.

I'd like to learn more about this from folks in Germany; but what I've
been told is that in Germany, being a machinist or engineer earns
respect.

Here in the U.S., a machinist career is low status. Engineers seem to
be regarded as hopeless dweebs, with a reluctant admission that they
are actually weirdly smart.

I think public image (or status) has a big effect on career choices,
and thus on trends in society. Since the 1980s at least, it's been
all about money in the U.S.. That is, society as a whole gives
respect primarily to those who earn a lot of money, even if their
practical contribution is negligible or even negative. As a result,
kids fantasize about careers with a one-in-a-million chance of getting
wildly rich, instead of careers where they could do good work, earn
decent income, and get respect for their contributions.

Status goes to rap stars with jail history, corporate raiders sending
jobs overseas, and men whose sole talent is running with a football.
All those are all given adulation. But if a person were to develop a
solar electric cell with 75% efficiency, he'd likely remain anonymous,
and possibly broke.

- Frank Krygowski

On 4/28/2011 11:14 AM, Ron Ruff wrote:
On Apr 28, 5:07 am, Peter wrote:
Tariffs get a lot of debate, probably because they're simple to
implement and understand. Currency exchange rates are much more
complicated and subtle, but with respect to trade, can have exactly the
same effect. In this case, currency and trade implications are just
another case of a virtual imposed tax for the wars that doesn't appear
on the balance sheet. Being the world's reserve currency delivers some
great advantages, but imposes some very real costs. The burden of our
imperial ambitions falls unevenly on different sectors of the American
economy. Some win, some lose. In the manufacturing sector, arms
manufacturers win, other manufacturers mostly lose, but the mechanism is
quite indirect. So what you say is true, but mostly not for the reasons
that most people assume.

Maybe some win and some lose, but as a whole... we lose. I tend to
view the manipulation of currencies and finance as complex methods for
some people to siphon off wealth while doing nothing of real value to
anyone.

If the dollar were to decline significantly against Chinese or Japanese
currencies, the prices of many consumer goods would rise substantially
in at least the short term. Interest rates on US debt would also rise
substantially. Ditto for energy prices. Those are pretty broad range
(and immediate) effects. Of course, long term, our manufacturing base
would likely improve, but there's no certainty. It's kind of like
raising fuel excises to European levels, long-term it would cause
probably beneficial effects, but short-term it would be painful,
especially in a recession as deep as this one. Probably the most
deciding factor (by a wide margin), is that either would be political
suicide in the current climate.

The "growth" in our financial economy (recent events having earned the
quotes) was largely due to the political choice to tax financial
earnings at a very low rate (esp. capital gains), that and lax
enforcement of existing tax laws and tolerance for an enormous off-shore
shadow market for money laundering. Both have displaced a good deal of
the corporate tax burden (exhibit A: G.E.).

Dollars flowing out for military expenditures (more of a flood during
the past decade) has been debt financed, which would have deflated the
dollar if not for Japan, China and Saudi Arabia propping it up. Japan
and China do it to protect their own currencies, the Saudis, because we
insisted they do. All of this is a Faustian bargain. To make it a all
work (to the extent that it does), we absolutely must control the Middle
East economically/militarily. That is why we continue massive support
for the Israelis (even after they thumb their noses at us), why we
invaded Iraq and rattle our sabers at Iran, sowing fears of terrorists
and nuclear proliferation while we support every tin pot dictator who
will negotiate with us.


The value of what is done seems to get little attention in economics.
Unnecessary money spent on wars, incarceration, financial
manipulations, etc is simply a waste... yet gets the same score for
production as anything else.

True, but most people, including mainstream media, keep drinking/serving
the Kool-Aid. They continue to blame scapegoats (e.g. Acorn for the
mortgage mess, Obama administration for deficit growth, etc.). The facts
are there, but no one seems interested. Now, the conservative proposal
is to gut the social contracts (public and private) as being too
expensive, while blocking any effective measures to lower costs or raise
revenue. The "free market" fundamentalism revoked protection from
predatory lending and crazy-leveraged financial speculation, allowed
mergers and consolidation of media to create a uniform corporate voice,
and now is trying to shut down PBS and NPR just to staunch the trickle
of unsponsored news that may leak around the plug.

As for the financial shenanigans, who has picked up the stories? I'm
embarrassed (for the American media), but it's only been decidedly
non-standard outlets like Rolling Stone. Everybody else is too far into
the game, either financially or ideologically, to report the obvious.
Look at the results of the last election, people are getting just what
they asked for. Remember Joe Barton apologizing to BP? Remember
Paulson's one page demand for $800B? Remember Colin Powell shaking a
vial of talcum powder? Now, Paul Ryan, suggesting scrapping Medicare and
Social Security? Just how blatant does the corruption have to get?

On 4/28/2011 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 28, 11:02 am, Ron wrote:
On Apr 28, 3:05 am, Helmut wrote:

Yes, but Germany still is in the business of producing and exporting
high value high tech equipment.

That too, does not happen by accident. They realize that a wealthy
society needs to be at the cutting edge of high tech design and
manufacture.

And from what I hear, they reinforce that by attaching more status to
technical and scientific careers than does the U.S.

I'd like to learn more about this from folks in Germany; but what I've
been told is that in Germany, being a machinist or engineer earns
respect.

Here in the U.S., a machinist career is low status. Engineers seem to
be regarded as hopeless dweebs, with a reluctant admission that they
are actually weirdly smart.

I think public image (or status) has a big effect on career choices,
and thus on trends in society. Since the 1980s at least, it's been
all about money in the U.S.. That is, society as a whole gives
respect primarily to those who earn a lot of money, even if their
practical contribution is negligible or even negative. As a result,
kids fantasize about careers with a one-in-a-million chance of getting
wildly rich, instead of careers where they could do good work, earn
decent income, and get respect for their contributions.

Status goes to rap stars with jail history, corporate raiders sending
jobs overseas, and men whose sole talent is running with a football.
All those are all given adulation. But if a person were to develop a
solar electric cell with 75% efficiency, he'd likely remain anonymous,
and possibly broke.

We have had plenty of high-tech success stories: Bill Gates, Larry
Ellison, Andy Grove -- and they go back a very long way in US history:
Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, Howard Hughes, etc. Don't forget,
the last big bubble was the dotcom, a co-worker of mine became a
multi-billionaire. If that doesn't inspire ambition and respect, I don't
know what will.

Our society and the world are quite aware that American engineers and
scientists invented the transistor, the laser, the integrated circuit,
the modern computer, the minicomputer, the microprocessor, personal
computer and the Internet. We didn't cure cancer (yet), but we conquered
polio, sequenced the genome, and invented most of the high-tech medical
instrumentation on the market. If we haven't impressed people, I don't
know what else we'd need to do. The "free market" knuckle draggers hoot
for "small government" -- apparently not understanding that most of this
technological cornucopia was paid for by the US taxpayer under
government (big, of course) auspices. They're determined to eat the seed
corn as a side dish with the golden goose.

The future of the US economy doesn't rest on machinists -- that's
fighting the last war. There's no point in pumping out large numbers of
scientists or engineers, either -- if they can't find employment. You
need big government to take big risks and solve big problems, that's
been repeatedly demonstrated (G.E. didn't run the Manhattan Project, nor
did Lockheed put Armstrong on the moon). You can't expect vision from a
crew of global warming and evolution deniers. You can't expect an
intelligent debate on investments refereed by the likes of Rupert
Murdoch and prepped by the Texas school book board.

G.E., GM, and a bunch of other former US manufacturing giants decided
that there was more money in financial monkey business, and directed
their resources accordingly. The problem was that the game was rigged
that way via incentives. I have no desire to see the return of
smokestack industries in America -- let the Chinese and Indians go that
route, they'll eventually discover unions, OSHA, EPA and Medicare, too.

If the fundamentalists in the US really believed in the power of
capitalism, they'd abandon the notion of empire, abolish the obscene
military tax (direct and indirect, on & off the books) and get down to
business before we've frittered away our dominance in science,
engineering and innovation. The US government is currently engaging in
whining over China's attempts to dominate the clean energy market. They
sound like the US auto industry in the 70's. We should just roll up our
sleeves and "get 'er done" -- while we still know how. "No bucks -- no
Buck Rogers".

On 4/28/2011 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 28, 11:02 am, Ron wrote:
On Apr 28, 3:05 am, Helmut wrote:

Yes, but Germany still is in the business of producing and exporting
high value high tech equipment.

That too, does not happen by accident. They realize that a wealthy
society needs to be at the cutting edge of high tech design and
manufacture.

And from what I hear, they reinforce that by attaching more status to
technical and scientific careers than does the U.S.

I'd like to learn more about this from folks in Germany; but what I've
been told is that in Germany, being a machinist or engineer earns
respect.

Here in the U.S., a machinist career is low status. Engineers seem to
be regarded as hopeless dweebs, with a reluctant admission that they
are actually weirdly smart.

I think public image (or status) has a big effect on career choices,
and thus on trends in society. Since the 1980s at least, it's been
all about money in the U.S.. That is, society as a whole gives
respect primarily to those who earn a lot of money, even if their
practical contribution is negligible or even negative. As a result,
kids fantasize about careers with a one-in-a-million chance of getting
wildly rich, instead of careers where they could do good work, earn
decent income, and get respect for their contributions.

Status goes to rap stars with jail history, corporate raiders sending
jobs overseas, and men whose sole talent is running with a football.
All those are all given adulation. But if a person were to develop a
solar electric cell with 75% efficiency, he'd likely remain anonymous,
and possibly broke.

More info & statistics:

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...conomic_engine

Seems to be unions as much as anything else.

Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'd like to learn more about this from folks in Germany; but what I've
been told is that in Germany, being a machinist or engineer earns
respect.

Here in the U.S., a machinist career is low status. *

Funny, that. Being a good machinist usually takes more work and
applied education than being a good engineer, lawyer, or physician.
The fact that a machinist is not regarded as a kind of engineer is
strange to me-- like a surgeon not being considered a kind of doctor.
That artificial status division actually drives away many of the most
able people of appropriate disposition for the job.

But the consequences of being an iffy machinist are not that bad as
long as the design is good and someone is inspecting the work.

Chalo

On 4/28/2011 11:57 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 4/28/2011 11:14 AM, Ron Ruff wrote:
On Apr 28, 5:07 am, Peter wrote:
Tariffs get a lot of debate, probably because they're simple to
implement and understand. Currency exchange rates are much more
complicated and subtle, but with respect to trade, can have exactly the
same effect. In this case, currency and trade implications are just
another case of a virtual imposed tax for the wars that doesn't appear
on the balance sheet. Being the world's reserve currency delivers some
great advantages, but imposes some very real costs. The burden of our
imperial ambitions falls unevenly on different sectors of the American
economy. Some win, some lose. In the manufacturing sector, arms
manufacturers win, other manufacturers mostly lose, but the mechanism is
quite indirect. So what you say is true, but mostly not for the reasons
that most people assume.

Maybe some win and some lose, but as a whole... we lose. I tend to
view the manipulation of currencies and finance as complex methods for
some people to siphon off wealth while doing nothing of real value to
anyone.

If the dollar were to decline significantly against Chinese or Japanese
currencies, the prices of many consumer goods would rise substantially
in at least the short term. Interest rates on US debt would also rise
substantially. Ditto for energy prices. Those are pretty broad range
(and immediate) effects. Of course, long term, our manufacturing base
would likely improve, but there's no certainty. It's kind of like
raising fuel excises to European levels, long-term it would cause
probably beneficial effects, but short-term it would be painful,
especially in a recession as deep as this one. Probably the most
deciding factor (by a wide margin), is that either would be political
suicide in the current climate.

The "growth" in our financial economy (recent events having earned the
quotes) was largely due to the political choice to tax financial
earnings at a very low rate (esp. capital gains), that and lax
enforcement of existing tax laws and tolerance for an enormous off-shore
shadow market for money laundering. Both have displaced a good deal of
the corporate tax burden (exhibit A: G.E.).

Dollars flowing out for military expenditures (more of a flood during
the past decade) has been debt financed, which would have deflated the
dollar if not for Japan, China and Saudi Arabia propping it up. Japan
and China do it to protect their own currencies, the Saudis, because we
insisted they do. All of this is a Faustian bargain. To make it a all
work (to the extent that it does), we absolutely must control the Middle
East economically/militarily. That is why we continue massive support
for the Israelis (even after they thumb their noses at us), why we
invaded Iraq and rattle our sabers at Iran, sowing fears of terrorists
and nuclear proliferation while we support every tin pot dictator who
will negotiate with us.

The US interests would be better served by dumping support for ✡Israel✡,
but a few large campaign contributors connected with the ✡Zionist✡ lobby
have bribed and/or scared Congress and the Executive into submission.
And the false antisemite charge and ✡Shoah✡ religion hasbara still have
their effects on the goyim general public, particulary in the US (the
boy has been crying wolf for over 6 decades now).

Similarly, the destruction of Iraq was at the behest of the ✡Zionist✡
lobby, as is the false demonization of Iran. Attacking Iran will be an
economic disaster for the US and Europe due to disruption of Gulf oil
production, but it fits in with the ✡Zionist✡ dream of dominating and
terrorizing the Middle East (due to their pre-traumatic stress syndrome).

The value of what is done seems to get little attention in economics.
Unnecessary money spent on wars, incarceration, financial
manipulations, etc is simply a waste... yet gets the same score for
production as anything else.

True, but most people, including mainstream media, keep drinking/serving
the Kool-Aid. They continue to blame scapegoats (e.g. Acorn for the
mortgage mess, Obama administration for deficit growth, etc.). The facts
are there, but no one seems interested. Now, the conservative proposal
is to gut the social contracts (public and private) as being too
expensive, while blocking any effective measures to lower costs or raise
revenue. The "free market" fundamentalism revoked protection from
predatory lending and crazy-leveraged financial speculation, allowed
mergers and consolidation of media to create a uniform corporate voice,
and now is trying to shut down PBS and NPR just to staunch the trickle
of unsponsored news that may leak around the plug.

And if they succeed in eliminating "net-neutrality", alternate domestic
and foreign news sites may be blocked for the major corporate ISP services.

As for the financial shenanigans, who has picked up the stories? I'm
embarrassed (for the American media), but it's only been decidedly
non-standard outlets like Rolling Stone. Everybody else is too far into
the game, either financially or ideologically, to report the obvious.
Look at the results of the last election, people are getting just what
they asked for. Remember Joe Barton apologizing to BP? Remember
Paulson's one page demand for $800B? Remember Colin Powell shaking a
vial of talcum powder? Now, Paul Ryan, suggesting scrapping Medicare and
Social Security? Just how blatant does the corruption have to get?

Just remember that the more *facts* you present to the faith-based
right-wing that *contradict* their beliefs, the more *strongly* they
believe, unless the contradiction comes from someone who they view as an
authority figure. The number of persons that blindly believe something
just because Limbaugh or Hannity said it is truly scary.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 4/28/2011 11:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 28, 11:02 am, Ron wrote:
On Apr 28, 3:05 am, Helmut wrote:

Yes, but Germany still is in the business of producing and exporting
high value high tech equipment.

That too, does not happen by accident. They realize that a wealthy
society needs to be at the cutting edge of high tech design and
manufacture.

And from what I hear, they reinforce that by attaching more status to
technical and scientific careers than does the U.S.

I'd like to learn more about this from folks in Germany; but what I've
been told is that in Germany, being a machinist or engineer earns
respect.

Here in the U.S., a machinist career is low status. Engineers seem to
be regarded as hopeless dweebs, with a reluctant admission that they
are actually weirdly smart.

Engineering in the US is a commodity to be done by the low bidder.

I think public image (or status) has a big effect on career choices,
and thus on trends in society. Since the 1980s at least, it's been
all about money in the U.S.. That is, society as a whole gives
respect primarily to those who earn a lot of money, even if their
practical contribution is negligible or even negative. As a result,
kids fantasize about careers with a one-in-a-million chance of getting
wildly rich, instead of careers where they could do good work, earn
decent income, and get respect for their contributions.

Back in better days, financial manipulators were (rightfully) seen as
parasites by the USian public.

Status goes to rap stars with jail history, corporate raiders sending
jobs overseas, and men whose sole talent is running with a football.
All those are all given adulation. But if a person were to develop a
solar electric cell with 75% efficiency, he'd likely remain anonymous,
and possibly broke.

"Celebrity culture is an opposite of community, informing us
that these few nonsense-heads matter but that the rest of
us do not." - Jay Griffiths

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:12:32 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
wrote:

On Apr 27, 8:17*am, AMuzi wrote:
J. D. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:49:25 -0500, T m Sherm n _
" wrote:

On 4/25/2011 8:26 PM, J. D. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:11:38 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
*wrote:

On Apr 24, 8:51 am, J. D. *wrote:
Class warfare? Funny I must have been associating with the wrong
people as I never saw any.
That's easily understandable. * Those who are employing wars of
oppression and winning are highly motivated to pretend the wars don't
exist.

"And for those of us who have never enjoyed job security, union
protection, tenure, a retirement plan, a secure job in a solid
corporation or booming industry, the jobs we do to put the
macaroni on the dinner table are ours to select only from the jobs
we are offered" - Christopher Cooper
Nice quote. But wrong. If you want a job as dog catcher and you are
qualified why wait until you are offered one. Send out a thousand
copies of your resume get a job.
Since you like to trade in singular examples, here's one for you.
Apologies to those who may have heard this before.

One friend of mine worked for a corporation that publishes
newspapers. *He ran several papers very successfully for that
corporation, going where they sent him over the years. *His last move,
at close to retirement age, was to take over a failing paper. *He
turned it into one of the most profitable in the chain. *Then he was
paid a surprise visit by the CEO, who let him go. *My friend had
gotten the operation running well enough that it could be turned over
to a much younger, less experienced and cheaper man. *My friend, BTW,
was looking forward to retirement in just a short time.

Since that happened, he has used every trick, every contact, every
reference in his huge rolodex in an effort to get a job, to no avail.
He's still out of work.

Perhaps he could go to some other state, or even some other country,
to find work. *But again, he's very close to retirement age (even
though retirement will likely be much less prosperous now). *He's very
motivated to stay close to his many friends, his children and
grandchildren, and to live in the house he and his wife built when he
took on that last position.

By your standards, he's just a layabout with insufficient motivation.
By my standards, he's a recognized expert in his industry, one who
worked long enough hours that he missed much of his kid's childhood,
one who earned his employer tons of money, and one whose reward was to
get fired because of the great service he'd performed.

But it was "just business," I guess, as it was with the very similar
story of my engineer friend, also terminated just shy of retirement.

- Frank Krygowski
Frank, seriously now, are you saying that this guy spent his whole
working life and doesn't have a nice cushion to fall back on?
Certainly poor financial planning, I'd say.

As for being canned I'd really like to hear both sides of that
argument as I've known a number of people who have essentially the
same story to tell and when you dig into it a little you find a
slightly different scenario. Not necessarily justice, but a reason
other then "it just happened".
There was one CEO who fired any employee that got on the elevator when
he was in it.

Frankly I doubt your story but even if it is true, so what? Obviously
it was commonly known as you are recounting the story. Are you
implying that all these people were too stupid to know that if they
got on the elevator they would get fired and still got on?

You are describing a group of people who weren't intelligent enough to
walk the streets without a keeper.
Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

Regarding elevator comment-

A bar I used to frequent hired a new manager in 1998. A year
in, he bought a camera system and told all the employees
there was a camera over the cash register. Within a month
he'd sacked all but one bartender and I've seen two of those
tapes. In both, guy looks at register, looks directly at
camera, looks at the door and pockets a twenty. Incredible.

The "firing everyone who got on the elevator" story is a crock -- at
least from the perspective of the real world. First, CEOs of large
companies -- with elevators and a large stock of fireable employees --
usually do not make ministerial hiring and firing decisions (except
for direct support staff). They may decide on a RIF, but one-off
hiring and firing is usually done by HR and managers, who do not fire
employees willy-nilly because (1) they could be very good at what they
do, and (2) there is probably a progressive discipline rule or other
possible handbook restriction, and (3) there will be an EEOC claim or
lawsuit if the employee is in a protected class. It is a bad financial
move to fire a productive employee, and a CEO would be counseled or
removed by the Board if he/she were firing employees willy-nilly for
riding the wrong elevator.

Also, high-value employees typically work under contracts providing
that they may be terminated only "for cause" -- with "cause" being
spelled out in the contract. They plan for the future by extracting
ISOs, retirement benefits, continued health care, high salaries, etc.,
etc. In exchange, the employer usually extracts a non-compete, IP
rights, confidentialitity and a lot of other things. Both sides get
good value. I don't believe stories about the "best guy in the
industry" getting fired for no reason and being left pennyless. That
does not squre with my reality.

OTOH, someone getting canned from a newspaper, even a CEO, doesn't
surprise me. They are sinking like rocks. Better to get out now than
to go down with the ship. -- Jay Beattie.

Actually I witnessed a case where the manager, in this case a
Drilling Rig Superintendent fired people on a whim. I was taking a
coffee break in the drilling camp mess (they had apple pie and our's
didn't) and the new Aussie rig mechanic was sitting at the other end
of the table. The rig superintendent came clomping in from the Heli
pad, coming back from town, and said to the Tower Pusher, "who's that
bearded F---". When the tower pusher replied, "Oh, that is the new
mechanic", the superintendent said, "Put him on the chopper, I'm not
having any bearded F--- on my rig".

Some time later I was talking with the drilling company manager and
asked him what ever happened to that "crotchety old B------",
referring the rig superintendent, and was told that the company "let
him go", it was too hard to keep hands. I asked him whatever happened
to that Aussie rig mechanic with the beard and was told, "Oh, he is
out on Rig 992".

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)