OT - NY Times economy article

Now Ed, you are being rude. True, I chose not to live in NY, but I have lived in many places, some quite urban and urbane.

I'm pretty sure I haven't refuted that statement.

His final fate is still uncertain, the market has punished him quite a bit, hopefully the legal system will too, we will see.

I don't have a 401K.

I don't think I have ever defended crooked CEO's, I'm pretty sure I have never defended any crook. I'm aware of what many CEO's and their cohorts are doing to the companies they run, and don't condone much of it. In the industry I often work in, oil & gas, or the popular term today "energy", companies are on a path to disaster in search of the holy grail of the moment - the next quarters returns. Planning for the long term health of an "energy" company is becoming rare. My little company was working for Enron when they crumpled by the way.

Agreed, and the harsher the punishment for being a crook the better.

I'm pretty sure that comment had nothing to do with you or your comments, it was a responce to that cat claiming that China is as free market as the U.S.

I'm pretty sure you're not talking specifically about "my" 401K, but again I don't have one

JTMcC, uneducated hick : )

It really wasn't a wisecrack, I feel sorry for folks who think they have little or no control over their own fate.

and huffing around

I really wasn't huffing either, Most everyone I know is taking advantage of the opportunities available, I probably appreciate them as much or more than most though.

it might

That would be a good idea : ) and my wife would agree heartily as she often comments that my sense of humor is exceedingly dry ; ), see, I'm getting the hang of it already!

JTMcC, long time Royals fan.

Alan Greenspan, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and the usual cast of reprobates on the Senate Banking Committee. Oh, and Bill Clinton.

Ed Huntress

Oh, bull, John. After telling me how you "pity me" for what I think, you're going to call it rude for me to toss the wisecracks back? You may know when you're joking, but it doesn't sound like joking to me. Is this a joke you're making now?

I'll assume it is. Try an emoticon or something, will ya'?

Ed Huntress

No, it's not a joke. Re read what I said, I pity anyone that thinks others are "calling their tune". If that's you, so be it, if that's not you, then what is the problem? Of course there are factors and situations that I can't control, and of course there are bad people, doing bad things, and of course I should fight these injustices with the means available to me but I am in control of my life, I am responsible for my successes and my failures. I get to call my own tune and I'm glad.

JTMcC.

Ed, Are you causing trouble again?

Folks, you have to excuse Ed. He takes his economics seriously, and seeing how times are difficult, a little concentration on economics couldnt hurt anyone.

Its also a little understandable that in a discussion of economics, to hear someone question the validity of "The Economist" is a bit absurd sounding, since it is the most prestigous economic publication on the open market world over.

True Non-political economists will always read "the economist", because even the Political situations that are discussed are tied into economics in a way we just dont see in other publications.

Ed, Flypaper country?

BG

I agree with you. I was not trying to say that you can compete in all cases by reducing only your own labor costs. But was trying to emphasize that manufacturing jobs would go away even if no jobs were exported. In some cases you can compete with China and in other cases you can not. But in every case to compete you need to wring out as much of the labor costs as you can.

Yesterday I had some gravel spread on the driveway. One truck comes with a trailer. The driver unhooks the truck from the trailer and spreads the load on the truck. Then hooks up to the trailer and transfers the part of the trailer holding the gravel to the truck, and spreads that gravel. Hooks back to the truck and transfers the container back to the trailer and drives off. Result one truck driver delivers and spreads essentially two truck loads of gravel. One less truck driving job.

Dan

I'm not sure I believe some of these statements:

First: 85% - 20%. Sounds like a restatement of the 80/20 rule. Unless someone has a database with over 270+ million names in it (US only now), with direct ties to their investments, I think this is voodoo (bogus) journalism. Let's see some facts here. And I dare them to make the info public domain, peer reviewed, etc.

1% - 38% wealth. Same argument One could ask the question "are these individuals or instuitions that control this wealth?" Where's the data (beef)?

10%-15% control. This could be true, but stockholders have a nasty habit of dumping companies that don't show a profit reflected in increased stock value, or pay dividends, and in the good old US that works quite well as a coporate firing squad.

Can you site documented sources to verify? (something more than some British periodical)?

Ed, this sounds like a Democrat (gasp) commercial.

Mike Eberlein (who always wanted to be a CEO, (nah! just the money), but finally realized that he ain't going to make it)

.

Ed Huntress wrote:

Ya' like that one? I like it. Maybe I'll trademark it. Do you think I could sell it to Paul Krugman?

Ed Huntress

No, the *real* key quote there, hidden in another link in that article (to a study) is, and here I'm paraphrasing,

'there are two kinds of layoffs. Temporary, where the workers are re-hired by the same company. And Permanent, where they are not, and go on to be hired, eventually, by other companies. Permanent layoffs cause jobs to disappear for much longer times because it takes longer for companies to hire new workers, than to re-hire the old ones.'

Basically what the study is saying is, "when a lot of folks get fired, unemployment results."

Casey Stengle, thanks so much!

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Two problems: First, they're right, in terms of the larger economy. As I said, a lot of people don't care. They're just interested in what's inside of their own box. From that perspective, you have unlimited opportunity -- until you start to get big and bang up against the walls of the box. Then you'll see what they mean.

Second, pity is a legitimate emotion if it's what you feel for someone who was just robbed of his life's savings. If it's something you feel because you think you understand something that they're just too obtuse to recognize, it gets iffy. It may just be self-delusion feeding an arrogant attitude, like the emotion one religious believer feels for someone with different beliefs.

Well, I'm glad for you, too, John.

-- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply)

The last I heard Kopper was in the can, but of course that might of changed, especially if he rats out his former partners in crime, and I'm sure he will. I think he still gets prison time, even if he testifies tho. They got

10 million or so from him and are after a bunch more. I run into Enron employees I know from time to time and they follow this situation a lot closer than I do. They expect Kopper to put a bunch of people on the spot. This might be old news, as I said, I don't follow it very close.

What

Lay may get away scott free, but as his high level underlings fall, his position gets shakier.

JTMcC.

His last big stock sale netted him $101.3

I see this morning that the Enron treasurer pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. As they line up these fairly high level "cooperators", hope rises that the top 2 or 3 will be convicted.

JTMcC.

Plus, the actual *unemployement* statistics seem to be saying, there really isn't that much. Unemployement, that is.

One set of statistics are saying that jobs are going away, another one says that everyone who wants a job, has one.

Either a) this is complete bullshit, b) the truth is somewhere in the middle, or c) that's quite true.

For (a) above one might think that the folks who tote up the actual unemployment stats have been pressured for years to do things like remove workers from that catagory if they've been out of work for more than a certain period, these being the 'discouraged' workers, who are not getting counted. Or workers who are 'self employed' now, a catagory that is much on the rise, because they've lost their real jobs. Or one of those recently quoted studies where the end result was that some of the layoffs recently have been 'permanent' ie. the workers were simply fired. And that it takes a lot longer to re-hire fired workers than ones just put on plant slowdown, because one needs to find jobs for them. Etc.

For (b) one can consider Gary's comments about how the workforce really is shrinking, so both could be true at the same time, to some degree. The idea that we maybe don't need as many jobs as we thought we did.

(C)? That everything is just hunky-dory, and it will all work out? I'm not betting on that one.

Another good reason not to watch TV.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Now, this afternoon, they say he's not cooperating, but he was sentenced to

5 yrs. and lost $900,000.

JTMcC.

And how much time actually spent inside? How much money was stolen and what does that work out to as an hourly rate? How much would a bank robber, taking .01% as much have got? G

"Ed Huntress" wrote in news:89H7b.136124$ snipped-for-privacy@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:

The Feds are too busy prosecuting REAL criminals!

Ah, jeez, how the mighty Chong has fallen. I'd rather that he lit up a joint in court and told the judge to stick it up his nose. At least he'd maintain his integrity.

But he's 65, so I guess he wants to spend his days out of jail as much as possible.

-- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply)

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:25:51 GMT, "Ed Huntress" pixelated:

Yeah, Tommy goes to prison while congress and the government go free for far worse crimes against man and nature. There IS no justice.

-------------------------------------------------------------------- Unfortunately, the term "Homo Sapiens" is a goal, not a description. ----

Web Design for YOUR Business!

--------------------------------------------------------------------