SOT- Feelin' Guilty about buying Chinese This n That...

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:24:59 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>I suspect that the potential laid-off American workers had better start
>becoming more competitive and learn to survive in world economy.

That's my tune - mostly. But I find it easier to tell this to a group
of 25 yr olds rather than a 55 yr old with a mortgage, college bills,
possible medical costs, perhaps a parent in need of long-term
expensive care. And wondering how long it'll be before his 401K
retirement plans get back on track after the bubble burst.

I've said it before - I'm in IT and I think about this everyday. What
am I doing to ensure I can provide for my family?

"Jay Chan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > >I heard that China will be using a different type of nuclear power
> > >plants to produce electricity, and its by-products is hydrogen that
> > >will probably be used in fuel cells or in the form of liquid hydrogen
> > >that will power cars. Hopefully, this will significantly reduce CO2
> > >emssion and pollution. Unfortunately this is all long term. I don't
> > >see any short term solution.
> >
> > China is planning to use output from some of its future
> > nuclear plants to produce hydrogen, but that's not a
> > function of the new design. The "new design" is actually
> > an evolution and refinement of an old one from the 1950's
> > that the US and Europe decided not to use. The most
> > important aspect of it is that it is largely immune to meltdown.
>
> I hear you. This was exactly the reason why I said it is a "different"
> design instead of saying that it is a "new" design. I used this term
> to mean that it is "different" from the conventional nuclear power
> plants that we normally see in US.
>
> Glad to hear that people is open to the idea of using nuclear power. I
> was wondering if someone might jump in and lecture me about the
> "evils" of using nuclear power.
>
> Jay Chan

The real evil, IMHO, is in NOT using nuclear energy.

In article <[email protected]>, Leon
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "patrick conroy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > In August, the trade deficit with China climbed to a record $18.1
> > billion, pushed higher by a surge in demand for cell phones, toys and
> > games, televisions and VCRs as U.S. retailers stocked their shelves in
> > advance of the holiday shopping season.
> >
> >
> > [ They don't mention 'dorkin tools, but I'm sure we in there
> > somewhere... ]
>
>
> If it makes you feel better, putting the trade gap into perspective, the
> record $18.1 billion might amount to 1 or 2 hours of consumer spending in
> the U.S.
>
>
It's tought to really get your mind around figures like that.

I have to admit that I go out of my way to buy tools built in the USA
or other countries I want to patronize (Thank you Robin Lee, purveyer
of the finest tool porn!) But I'm only willing to pay so much more for
those items or only CHICOM are available, so sometimes I end up buying
a Chinese product. It's not so much their export policies and the trade
balance, but the general treatment of their citizens and some inside
knowledge on the now forgotten EP-3E incident of several years ago that
still pisses me off. On the other hand, I have coworkers that say the
best way to get China to reform is to buy their products and empower
the growing middle class .
I don't know, overall I guess I still like the "made in USA" label on
the things I buy for my leisure time, be it guns, flyrods or tools.

Allen
Catonsville, MD

In article <[email protected]>, Bob Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim Douglass wrote:
>
> > If we wanted to level the trade deficit all we would have to do is
> > require that any company shipping goods to the US had to document that
> > their production was meeting all US environmental standards. You would
> > see production moving back to the US in droves.
>
> "US environmental standards" ?
>
> There must be a reason why GWB won't sign the Kyoto protocol.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/us.html

Same reason John Kerry says's it's a bad treaty. Take a look at the
interviews of both candidates in this months Field and Stream magazine.
Here's a link.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/article/0,13199,702
716-8,00.html

You'll have to paste the whole thing together or just go to

www.fieldandstream.com

and take a look. It's a pretty even handed look at both candidates but
I'm in the already decided catogory myself. The other thing to read is
the Theodore Roosevelt Editorial from 1927 (obviously published after
his death) well worth a read.

Allen

"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> There must be a reason why GWB won't sign the Kyoto protocol.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/us.html

The Chinese are catching up to us on the total CO2. The per capita is way
down, but it is a matter or ratios in a highly populated but not fully
industrialized country. I'd like to see comparitive figures as we import
more from them. That was 1997.

I do know that we are soon installing about $500,000 in equipment to reduce
emissions at our company. (not that it is a bad thing environmentally) It is
required in most areas of the US, but not at all in China.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:18:45 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> Industrial grade equipment (excluding forklifts, for the most part)
>> almost always has a made in the USA tag on it, as far as I've seen in
>> any factory around here. I can't imagine using a brake press that was
>> made in China out of plastic and tin. Maybe it is all dying out, but
>> it really doesn't seem like it on the production floor.
>
>
>
>More and more machines are being made overseas. In my business, molding foam
>plastics, the dozen of so US manufacturers are all gone. Last one was
>closed about a dozen years ago.
>
>I can buy machines from Austria, Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea.
>
>It is good to see that companies like Minster are still around but others
>have shut the doors. Heald, and many like them are long gone.

HE&M is still making some damn nice bandsaws with a flag on them- and
the HEM guys still come out to do PMs and such. A lot of the other
machines are older, so I suppose it's possible the companies are no
longer around. But this area is still booming like crazy when it
comes to manufacturing, and it's hard to believe the hype when I see
the huge amounts of spin that the news programs are using when they
report layoffs around here. I live in a small town, so I usually know
someone that works at any given place, and there is usually a very
good reason for layoffs that has nothing to do with China or Korea.

mark wrote:
>>>One reason was that china was exempt, for god's sake.
>>
>>and that's a good reason to sit back and do nothing while the planet goes
>>to hell, is it ?
>
>
> Not at all. But it's a good reason not to join a treaty that would hurt us.

No it isn't. You can't expect every country in the world to be there on
day one. If the rich countries set a good example then the others can
be persuaded, given time.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:44:14 GMT, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jay Chan wrote:
>>[snip] >
>> Glad to hear that people is open to the idea of using nuclear power. I
>> was wondering if someone might jump in and lecture me about the
>> "evils" of using nuclear power.

> 1. A terrorist will crash a plane into it and we will all go ka-boom-boom.

Not gonna happen. The containment buildings are significantly harder than,
say, an office building tower.

> 2. A diddly-dip will accidentally crash his car/boat/plane into it and
> we will all go ka-boom-boom.

See above.

> 3. There is no where to store the leftover waste (NIMBY!) so it will be
> left in piles along side the road and we will all glow in the dark and
> die of bippy cancer.

Oh no, not my bippy. OK, you're right, no nukes for me then.

> 4. There is no where to store the leftover waste (NIMBY!) so it will be
> used by terrorists to make dirty bombs and we will all glow in the dark
> and die of bippy cancer.

Dang again. See above.

> 5. There will be an accidental melt-down all the way to China which will
> piss them off enough to launch missles and we will all go ka-boom-boom.

Only happens in Jane Fonda movies, and I've heard that she has a
bit of a bias on an issue or two.

> Stuff like that, eh?

Yup, that's pretty much it. The anti-nuke folks have to resort to
spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) to scare people away from
the most logical power production method we could go to for power generation.

Just think - nukes for the electric, bio-fuels for the mobile stuff.
The Arabs could try to sell oil to each other. The capacity is there,
but instead of spending money making bio-fuels practical, and instead of
building the nuke plants to get us away from foreign oil, and instead
of using domestic oil in the meantime, we keep giving lots of money to
people who are neutral to us at best, and who mostly want to kill us.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:08:41 -0400, George <george@least> wrote:
> If you take the coal we have and process it with the abundant energy of the
> reactor, you don't need to use productive land for "biofuel."

But the productive land we're not using for biofuels is sitting idle.
Trust me on this one, I've got 30 acres of it that they're paying me
not to farm. If I had soybeans on it, I could make more in a good year
than I get paid to not farm it, the extra demand would balance out the
extra production, and we could stop giving money to people who hate us.
Nuke and Coal don't help make a vehicle go down the road, at least
not yet. The infrastructure isn't there for electric cars, and the
culture isn't ready for same either. Too much change at once,
y'see. Give 'em a fuel that's grown locally, that they can buy at
the same places they go to now for fuel, _that_ will be accepted and
used.

> Not to worry about the money. As long as the press and candidate X continue
> to savage those friendly to us and make friendly with those who savage us,
> it's wasted regardless.

Yeah, it's interesting how he keeps doing that, and his supporters
don't seem to notice and/or care.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:20:18 -0400, George <george@least> wrote:
> You're a couple centuries behind in your knowledge of synfuels.
> http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy11a.htm

How so? I'm saying "let's start using them more", not "they never
existed before today" or whatever you're trying to say I'm saying.

> Not to mention IG Farben and the boys over there in Berlin making petrol for
> Messerschmitts.

Yes, I'm aware of it.

> Then you could farm that 30 and feed "the children" somewhere else. I'll
> keep my homestead in forest.

I never brought up feeding "the children", I made the point that I'd
rather we support USA'n farmers with our money, than give that same money
to a bunch of Arabs who want to kill us.

Maybe you're responding to a different message than the one I wrote?
That'd make more sense than thinking it's actually about my post.

Dave Hinz

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:43:34 -0400, George <george@least> wrote:
> Nope, I'm certainly not responding to what you _think_ you wrote, but rather
> what you wrote.
>
> You Wrote:
>> Nuke and Coal don't help make a vehicle go down the road, at least
>> not yet. The infrastructure isn't there for electric cars, and the
>> culture isn't ready for same either. Too much change at once,
>> y'see.

> I merely pointed out that heat and coal have been making fuel suitable for
> vehicles for a long time.

Ah, I see. Since you didn't, you know, include that context, I didn't
know that that was what you were talking to.

The problem with coal gasification (I'm familiar with it; my grandfather
was a chemical engineer in a coal gas plant in Milwaukee for decades -
google "Milwaukee Solvay" and my last name for confirmation). The thing
is, that's (a) just transforming one fuel into another, and (b) not something
that will run in unmodified vehicles of today. Contrast this to biodiesel
and/or gasoline/alcohol blends, where the same people can fill their same
cars at the same stations using the same pumps, with a product that is at
least partially domestically produced. Changing too much of consumer's
pattern at once is going to result in a technology not being widely adopted.
This is why hydrogen cars continue not to happen, but why hibrid/electrics
are more viable and available.

>> > You're a couple centuries behind in your knowledge of synfuels.
>> > http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy11a.htm
>
> Even the same fuel the culture is used to.

How does coal gas work in a current unmodified automobile? Where can
I fill up on it today? Use that chemical energy for something it's more
suited for; stationary applications. It's not a good fit for wide
mobile distribution and point-of-use combustion.

>> > Not to mention IG Farben and the boys over there in Berlin making petrol
> for
>> > Messerschmitts.
>
> Further, I didn't attribute "feed the children" to you. It's a stock
> liberal phrase.

I wouldn't know, not being one.

> And a better use for land than growing and blowing it
> through a tailpipe, even though ****CAUTION NEW INFORMATION*** the park
> service vehicles they're fuelling with grease from fast food frycookers
> hereabout do have an intriguing smell. ***END NEW INFORMATION***

First of all, your attitude is getting in the way of presenting your
point, which I'm _still_ not sure what the hell it is. Secondly, I am
very familiar with the current state of biodiesel and the various sources
from which it can be obtained.

As far as "feeding the children" with my land, if that's what your point
is saying I should be doing (rather than growing soybeans for oil, or letting
it sit in the Clinton-era contracts to lay fallow rather than farm), well,
I guess that's a choice I get to make. Once those contracts expire, I can
either choose to continue to grow the trees on it, or to do whatever else
is economically feasable, and/or technically interesting and or possible with
it.

> Are your dyslexic or just dyspeptic?

Yawn. I'm sure if you have an actual point and/or value to add to this
conversation, you could do better than whatever that was. Couple of
questions: are you disagreeing that the arabs don't like us? Do you agree
or disagree that it is preferable to spend money supporting USA'n farmers,
as compared to sending that same money to people in arabic countries?

If you agree that the local farmers are more deserving than the people who
want to kill us, then would you agree that a solution which improves both
aspects of that equation would be one to pursue?

Dave Hinz

"Jack Casuso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> snip > "so polluted, the people who live nearby have to bring in bottled
> water to
> drink."
>
> Why do Americans buy so much bottled water then?
>

Paranoia? Because it tastes better than the chlorinated stuff? Because
they can afford to spend money on water? I don't think they HAVE to, I
think they LIKE to. Big difference. I dunno -- I have a well.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:46:53 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The solution to an excessive trade in cheap crap is not to buy cheap
>>> crap. We're all too affluent - far too much property around means that
>>> ownership has itself been devalued. How can you take pride in a piece
>>> of furniture when it's just $25 from Ikea ? Have less - but have
>>> better.
>>
>>Andy, Andy, Andy. I know you've been contributing to the group for quite
>>a while - with some excellent responses, BTW - but maybe you didn't
>>realize that most here are Americans...

He probably didn't, because that mental squirt doesn't have a clue
about anything. Look at the banal and useless things he makes and
takes such pride in! Talk about someone who ain't got a life! His real
name must be Andy Dingleberry, and the world is a worse place since
his pitiful mother spawned him/it. I wish he'd make himself a coffin
out of that scrap wood he uses, and bury himself in it alive, and
very, very deep.

Peace, Rb

If you take the coal we have and process it with the abundant energy of the
reactor, you don't need to use productive land for "biofuel."

Not to worry about the money. As long as the press and candidate X continue
to savage those friendly to us and make friendly with those who savage us,
it's wasted regardless.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Just think - nukes for the electric, bio-fuels for the mobile stuff.
> The Arabs could try to sell oil to each other. The capacity is there,
> but instead of spending money making bio-fuels practical, and instead of
> building the nuke plants to get us away from foreign oil, and instead
> of using domestic oil in the meantime, we keep giving lots of money to
> people who are neutral to us at best, and who mostly want to kill us.
>
> Dave Hinz

You're a couple centuries behind in your knowledge of synfuels.
http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy11a.htm

Not to mention IG Farben and the boys over there in Berlin making petrol for
Messerschmitts.

Then you could farm that 30 and feed "the children" somewhere else. I'll
keep my homestead in forest.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:08:41 -0400, George <george@least> wrote:
> > If you take the coal we have and process it with the abundant energy of
the
> > reactor, you don't need to use productive land for "biofuel."
>
> But the productive land we're not using for biofuels is sitting idle.
> Trust me on this one, I've got 30 acres of it that they're paying me
> not to farm. If I had soybeans on it, I could make more in a good year
> than I get paid to not farm it, the extra demand would balance out the
> extra production, and we could stop giving money to people who hate us.
> Nuke and Coal don't help make a vehicle go down the road, at least
> not yet. The infrastructure isn't there for electric cars, and the
> culture isn't ready for same either. Too much change at once,
> y'see. Give 'em a fuel that's grown locally, that they can buy at
> the same places they go to now for fuel, _that_ will be accepted and
> used.
>
> > Not to worry about the money. As long as the press and candidate X
continue
> > to savage those friendly to us and make friendly with those who savage
us,
> > it's wasted regardless.
>
> Yeah, it's interesting how he keeps doing that, and his supporters
> don't seem to notice and/or care.
>
> Dave Hinz

Nope, I'm certainly not responding to what you _think_ you wrote, but rather
what you wrote.

You Wrote:
> Nuke and Coal don't help make a vehicle go down the road, at least
> not yet. The infrastructure isn't there for electric cars, and the
> culture isn't ready for same either. Too much change at once,
> y'see.

I merely pointed out that heat and coal have been making fuel suitable for
vehicles for a long time.
> > You're a couple centuries behind in your knowledge of synfuels.
> > http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy11a.htm

Even the same fuel the culture is used to.
>
> > Not to mention IG Farben and the boys over there in Berlin making petrol
for
> > Messerschmitts.

Further, I didn't attribute "feed the children" to you. It's a stock
liberal phrase. And a better use for land than growing and blowing it
through a tailpipe, even though ****CAUTION NEW INFORMATION*** the park
service vehicles they're fuelling with grease from fast food frycookers
hereabout do have an intriguing smell. ***END NEW INFORMATION***

Are your dyslexic or just dyspeptic?


"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:20:18 -0400, George <george@least> wrote:
> > You're a couple centuries behind in your knowledge of synfuels.
> > http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy11a.htm
>
> How so? I'm saying "let's start using them more", not "they never
> existed before today" or whatever you're trying to say I'm saying.
>
> > Not to mention IG Farben and the boys over there in Berlin making petrol
for
> > Messerschmitts.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of it.
>
> > Then you could farm that 30 and feed "the children" somewhere else.
I'll
> > keep my homestead in forest.
>
> I never brought up feeding "the children", I made the point that I'd
> rather we support USA'n farmers with our money, than give that same money
> to a bunch of Arabs who want to kill us.
>
> Maybe you're responding to a different message than the one I wrote?
> That'd make more sense than thinking it's actually about my post.
>
> Dave Hinz
>

"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >
>
> All right, I'll give you Mazak and Bridgeport. Honestly, though- I've
> never seen the others around here, with the exception of forklifts.

If you have an industry that does much machining, they are around. The
Japanese dominate the CNC machine tool market and have for many years. You
do see a fair amount of Haas and Fadal (American made) though those are sold
to the type of people that shop at Harbor Freight. Pretty low quality
machines but they are cheap.

> This is probably a case where I should open my mouth and insert foot.
> It just seems like in a lot of cases where I'm at people are only
> unemployed because they don't want to work, and I have a hard time
> trusting anything the media tells me anymore.

I tend to agree with you there.

On 15 Oct 2004 05:14:40 -0700, [email protected] (Ray Kinzler)
wrote:

>I posted this article before but it fits in better here. It is an
>article about how economist Paul Samuelson has done an about face on
>globalism and says it will cause grave problems in the country that is
>pushing all its labor off-shore, specifically mentioning China.
>
>This is the quote I especially like:
>
>"Samuelson's insight is that if a low-wage country like China suddenly
>makes a major productivity leap in an industry formerly led by the
>United States, the result can be a net negative for the American
>people. Although American consumers may benefit via low-low prices at
>Wal-Mart, their gains may be more than outweighed by large losses
>sustained by laid-off American workers."
>
>As before, I am hesitant to quote the entire article because of
>copyright laws
>but here is the url to read it yourself:
>
>http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8521

A good article and a book that's been long overdue. After listening
to Ralph Nader speak to this very subject last night, I really wish we
had some realistic hope of getting him elected.

With the almost-total loss now of our manufacturing base, our economy
is based on smoke&mirrors, hamburgers and "information technology"
(which is essentially nothing).

The only people who really believe in the 'global economy' are the
very few who are enlarging their personal fortunes. For the rest of
us it's disaster, and NAFTA is the most close-to-home example I can
think of at the moment.

One of the shining examples of how bad NAFTA is, is that the state of
Michigan cannot stop Canada from hauling their trash and hazardous
waste across our borders. Now, this is a country with a land mass
pretty much equivalent to that of the United States and a population
of some 30 million. Surely, somewhere, in all that wasteland, theres
room for a landfill of their very own. And on top of all that, one
very greedy and uncaring US developer is now drilling a 'deep well',
into which he intends to let Canada inject even more hazardous waste.
The only thing that can stop this is action by the US congress, and
the liklihood of that happening are just slightly less than me having
Britney Spears show up on my door tonight for a date.

(Soapbox now properly stowed. Thanks for listening.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:16:17 -0400, "Eric Anderson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I am afraid you are right there. The question is, how long will it take
>their standard of living to reach the level we are when our standards of
>living cross? What will our standard of living be at that time? Come on,
>Paul Samuelson, draw us a curve of THAT.

It's actually pretty straightforward. Only the time question is hard
to figure. Given current population levels our standard of living will
need to drop down well into what we consider "developing nation"
status before we will be competitive on the world market. Expect to
see an economy where a car is a luxury and where 75% or more of your
income goes to subsistence - i.e. food and minimal clothing. It is not
a pretty picture, but the world's supply of resources is inadequate to
give everyone much above that.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

mark wrote:
>>"US environmental standards" ?
>>
>>There must be a reason why GWB won't sign the Kyoto protocol.
>>
>>http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/us.html
>
>
> One reason was that china was exempt, for god's sake.

and that's a good reason to sit back and do nothing while the planet
goes to hell, is it ?

Allen Epps wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Martin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Tim Douglass wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If we wanted to level the trade deficit all we would have to do is
>>>require that any company shipping goods to the US had to document that
>>>their production was meeting all US environmental standards. You would
>>>see production moving back to the US in droves.
>>
>>"US environmental standards" ?
>>
>>There must be a reason why GWB won't sign the Kyoto protocol.
>>
>>http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/us.html
>
>
> Same reason John Kerry says's it's a bad treaty. Take a look at the
> interviews of both candidates in this months Field and Stream magazine.
> Here's a link.
>
> http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/article/0,13199,702
> 716-8,00.html
>
> You'll have to paste the whole thing together or just go to
>
> www.fieldandstream.com
>
> and take a look. It's a pretty even handed look at both candidates but
> I'm in the already decided catogory myself. The other thing to read is
> the Theodore Roosevelt Editorial from 1927 (obviously published after
> his death) well worth a read.
>
> Allen

That's all very well, Allen, but saving the planet means sacrifices,
both jobs and money, and you can't expect politicians to support such
ideas with an election looming.

But one thing is certain : our children and grand-children will hate us
for our utter selfishness and complacency.

"patrick conroy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:24:59 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I suspect that the potential laid-off American workers had better start
>>becoming more competitive and learn to survive in world economy.
>
> That's my tune - mostly. But I find it easier to tell this to a group
> of 25 yr olds rather than a 55 yr old with a mortgage, college bills,
> possible medical costs, perhaps a parent in need of long-term
> expensive care. And wondering how long it'll be before his 401K
> retirement plans get back on track after the bubble burst.


I'm 50 now and always kept in the back of my mind, I could be replaced or
this type business is not going to last unless changes are made. I am
certainly glad that I knew this when I was 23.

jo4hn <[email protected]> writes:
>Jay Chan wrote:
>>[snip] >
>> Glad to hear that people is open to the idea of using nuclear power. I
>> was wondering if someone might jump in and lecture me about the
>> "evils" of using nuclear power.
>>
>> Jay Chan
>
>1. A terrorist will crash a plane into it and we will all go ka-boom-boom.

Not possible. Worst that can happen from this is an unintentional
release of radioactivity at a scale much closer to TMI than Chernobel.
Certainly won't explode.

>2. A diddly-dip will accidentally crash his car/boat/plane into it and
>we will all go ka-boom-boom.

Not possible (the ka-boom-boom part).

>3. There is no where to store the leftover waste (NIMBY!) so it will be
>left in piles along side the road and we will all glow in the dark and
>die of bippy cancer.

Reprocess the waste into more fuel. Known and available technology
(although the US shutdown its reprocessing facilities in the 70's, other
countries still reprocess their spent fuel rods).

Reprocessing creates useful fuel from the waste. The waste from
reprocessing is fairly low-level (half life in the 100 year range
rather than 100,000 year range) and occupies little volume.

<http://www.anlw.anl.gov/htdocs/anlw_history/reactors/ifr.html>

>4. There is no where to store the leftover waste (NIMBY!) so it will be
>used by terrorists to make dirty bombs and we will all glow in the dark
>and die of bippy cancer.

A dirty bomb is much overrated. The contamination produced by the
explosion of a typical dirty bomb (medical isotopes or old fuel rods)
will provide a radiation dose pretty close to background (its within
the noise) outide of the immediate proximity (100's feet) of the
explosion. [See the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists for details].
Anyone close enough to the explosion to be affected by any exposure
to radiation is probably dead from the blast effects anyway. Granted
decontam will need to be done, but on a fairly small (a block ortwo)
scale.

Sure it sucks, but it ain't the end of the world, or even a singificant
problem (excepting the inevitable irrational mass panic from the uneducated
masses).

Note that the core of a dirty bomb is still conventional explosive and
even a ton of TNT going off is relatively minor on the scale of a city.

>5. There will be an accidental melt-down all the way to China which will
>piss them off enough to launch missles and we will all go ka-boom-boom.

watching those stupid fonda flix again are you? SNL had it right with
the Pepsi Syndrome.

scott

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:17:39 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:10:14 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> Sometimes you have no choice. I went to buy a toaster recently. Every
>> single one was made in China. Tools are getting more and more from
>> overseas even if we want to buy US.
>
>The daughter wanted an over the range microwave. We strolled down the
>micro aisle at the borg, and she opens an E-wave. I says "Made in Korea".
>I says "you don't want that". As we opened all the others, GE, Maytag,
>Fridge, all the "US" made brands - every damned microwave is made in
>Korea! I would guess, after taking a look, they all may have come out of
>the same factory.

probably dae woo (sp)... they make everything from computers to cars..

> "US environmental standards" ?
>
> There must be a reason why GWB won't sign the Kyoto protocol.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/us.html

One reason was that china was exempt, for god's sake.

I am afraid you are right there. The question is, how long will it take
their standard of living to reach the level we are when our standards of
living cross? What will our standard of living be at that time? Come on,
Paul Samuelson, draw us a curve of THAT.

"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:08:28 -0400, "Eric Anderson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I agree with what you are all saying here. I am so thankful that my son
is
> >working for a company making war machines right now because that is all
that
> >I see that is safe in the US manufacturing area. I went to Sam's club
today
> >and wondered around looking at where the products were made. Almost
> >everything I saw with any real manufacturing content (except washers,
dryers
> >and some tools) were made in China. Scares the heck out of me.
> >
> >People like Rush Limbaugh seem to believe that we have always found a way
to
> >compete in the past. I am looking for someone to tell me how except for
a
> >very few areas (like high tech war machines).
>
> We will compete again when the standard of living in those other
> countries rises to where it is no longer cost effective to transport
> the goods. Of course that will also be coupled with a drop in our own
> standard of living, but that may not be all bad.
>
> Tim Douglass
>
> http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mark wrote:
> >>"US environmental standards" ?
> >>
> >>There must be a reason why GWB won't sign the Kyoto protocol.
> >>
> >>http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/us.html
> >
> >
> > One reason was that china was exempt, for god's sake.
>
> and that's a good reason to sit back and do nothing while the planet
> goes to hell, is it ?

Bob,

you crack me up.......I am not an economist and I consider myself a
conservative. I am betting you are niether. But do you really believe
there are any sane, honest and hardworking american citizens who prefer bad
air...bad water...desolate forests....wildlife confined to a zoo etc?
Everyone, but for the nutcases recognize that environmental issues are
important. The difference, it seems, has to do with our beliefs a solution.
Any solution that costs US jobs has to be considered carefully. Nothing can
wreck the environment faster than poverty. A simple glance around the world
will show that.

Does anyone else find it ironic that in a thread discussing the loss of US
manufacturing and therefore the loss of mfg jobs, that failure to sign the
Kyoto treaty should be bemoaned.

PS: Mark my words --the biggest news story immediatly AFTER the election
will be the UN/oil for food scandal. The story won't change between now and
then, but the coverage certainly will.

Allen Epps wrote:

> I have to admit that I go out of my way to buy tools built in the USA
> or other countries I want to patronize (Thank you Robin Lee, purveyer
> of the finest tool porn!) But I'm only willing to pay so much more for
> those items or only CHICOM are available, so sometimes I end up buying
> a Chinese product.

A new battery & battery charger for my 13.2 B&D Firestorm drill came to
$55.77. A couple days later at HF I got a 14.4 battery & battery charger &
drill for about $17.00. Seems to work just fine. In fact I'm thinking
about buying a spare battery for it (and charger and drill) while they're
still on sale. ;-)

How can you make something useful, ship it halfway around the world, and
everyone makes money on a $17 product? Pretty impressive when you think
about it.

-- Mark

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Soooo, since EVERY microwave is made in Korea, how do I tell which is the
> best value and what do the "locals" have to do with it, and who are the
> "locals" competing with, and isn't it already a little "late"?
>
> -Doug

LOL... I knew that I probably should have posted this some where else. In
this case it would be hard to tell since each one appears to have been made
in one location. And yes in this case, it may be too late. I went through
this during the spring, buying a new microwave to replace a 1978 model and
every sales man knew SQUAT about the microwaves. Man these things do 10
times as much as they did back then for 1/4 the price.

"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Industrial grade equipment (excluding forklifts, for the most part)
> almost always has a made in the USA tag on it, as far as I've seen in
> any factory around here. I can't imagine using a brake press that was
> made in China out of plastic and tin. Maybe it is all dying out, but
> it really doesn't seem like it on the production floor.



More and more machines are being made overseas. In my business, molding foam
plastics, the dozen of so US manufacturers are all gone. Last one was
closed about a dozen years ago.

I can buy machines from Austria, Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea.

It is good to see that companies like Minster are still around but others
have shut the doors. Heald, and many like them are long gone.

snip > "so polluted, the people who live nearby have to bring in bottled
water to
drink."

Why do Americans buy so much bottled water then?

"mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > How can you make something useful, ship it halfway around the world, and
> > everyone makes money on a $17 product? Pretty impressive when you think
> > about it.
> >
> > -- Mark
>
> Welll......it's all in the labor, and lack of environmental laws. I read
an
> amazing article about what sometimes happens to the world's old computers.
> China has enormous landfills made up of only junker pcs. Labor is so
cheap,
> it is actually economically feasible to have people actually stripping
them
> for parts, screws, wire, even down to the level of using acid to leach the
> precious metals out of the circuit boards. The areas where they do this
are
> so polluted, the people who live nearby have to bring in bottled water to
> drink. Scary.
>
>

>>
>> One reason was that china was exempt, for god's sake.
>
> and that's a good reason to sit back and do nothing while the planet goes
> to hell, is it ?

Not at all. But it's a good reason not to join a treaty that would hurt us.

"Eric Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Almost
> everything I saw with any real manufacturing content (except washers,
> dryers
> and some tools) were made in China. Scares the heck out of me.

Right, the washers and dryers are made in Korea. Take a look at the larger
appliances and more and more are imports. Places like Best Buy are pushing
a lot of them

> I have to admit that I go out of my way to buy tools built in the USA
> or other countries I want to patronize (Thank you Robin Lee, purveyer
> of the finest tool porn!) But I'm only willing to pay so much more for
> those items or only CHICOM are available, so sometimes I end up buying
> a Chinese product. It's not so much their export policies and the trade
> balance, but the general treatment of their citizens and some inside
> knowledge on the now forgotten EP-3E incident of several years ago that
> still pisses me off. On the other hand, I have coworkers that say the
> best way to get China to reform is to buy their products and empower
> the growing middle class .
> I don't know, overall I guess I still like the "made in USA" label on
> the things I buy for my leisure time, be it guns, flyrods or tools.

Hard NOT to buy chinese tools. Something like 52% of walmart's inventory
comes from china. I asked my wife to pick me up a couple of adjustable
wrenches when she was at lowes. She came home with 2 crescent wrenches --
actual Crescent brand wrenchess -- she paid something like 17 bucks for
them. Made in the USA. Outstanding quality, but worth 11 bucks more than the
chinese version? On something small ticket like this, I would say yeah it
is. But My tablesaw is a Jet (isn't that taiwanese?) My band saw is made in
china, and I'm sure a lot of my other tools are too. It's tough to buy
american, even though I like to think I would if I could afford to.

patrick conroy wrote:
[snip]
> In August, the trade deficit with China climbed to a record $18.1
> billion, pushed higher by a surge in demand for cell phones, toys and
> games, televisions and VCRs as U.S. retailers stocked their shelves in
> advance of the holiday shopping season.
>
>
> [ They don't mention 'dorkin tools, but I'm sure we in there
> somewhere... ]

We have to keep making nice with the Chinese. The People's Republic
owns a fair chunk of our $7 trillion nation debt.
twitch,
jo4hn

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:59:37 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2004 11:20:48 -0700, [email protected] (Jay Chan) wrote:
>
>>
>>I heard that China will be using a different type of nuclear power
>>plants to produce electricity, and its by-products is hydrogen that
>>will probably be used in fuel cells or in the form of liquid hydrogen
>>that will power cars. Hopefully, this will significantly reduce CO2
>>emssion and pollution. Unfortunately this is all long term. I don't
>>see any short term solution.
>
> China is planning to use output from some of its future
> nuclear plants to produce hydrogen, but that's not a
> function of the new design. The "new design" is actually
> an evolution and refinement of an old one from the 1950's
> that the US and Europe decided not to use. The most
> important aspect of it is that it is largely immune to meltdown.

I thought Sweden and France were using that design.

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:10:14 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> Sometimes you have no choice. I went to buy a toaster recently. Every
>> single one was made in China. Tools are getting more and more from
>> overseas even if we want to buy US.
>
> The daughter wanted an over the range microwave. We strolled down the
> micro aisle at the borg, and she opens an E-wave. I says "Made in Korea".
> I says "you don't want that". As we opened all the others, GE, Maytag,
> Fridge, all the "US" made brands - every damned microwave is made in
> Korea! I would guess, after taking a look, they all may have come out of
> the same factory.

IMHO get the tool that offers the most value to you personally. Buying more
expensive or inferior hurts every body including the factory worker. The
locals need to learn to compete if they expect to remain in business. One
day it will be too late to learn to compete. Now is a good tome to learn.

"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:08:28 -0400, "Eric Anderson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I agree with what you are all saying here. I am so thankful that my son
is
> >working for a company making war machines right now because that is all
that
> >I see that is safe in the US manufacturing area. I went to Sam's club
today
> >and wondered around looking at where the products were made. Almost
> >everything I saw with any real manufacturing content (except washers,
dryers
> >and some tools) were made in China. Scares the heck out of me.
> >
> >People like Rush Limbaugh seem to believe that we have always found a way
to
> >compete in the past. I am looking for someone to tell me how except for
a
> >very few areas (like high tech war machines).
>
> Industrial grade equipment (excluding forklifts, for the most part)
> almost always has a made in the USA tag on it, as far as I've seen in
> any factory around here. I can't imagine using a brake press that was
> made in China out of plastic and tin. Maybe it is all dying out, but
> it really doesn't seem like it on the production floor.

You mean all that American industrial equipment like Okuma, Hitachi Seiki,
Mazak, Mori Seiki, Komatsu, Matsuura, Karaki ect? Yep, use that stuff daily.
How about that English made Bridgeport?

"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mark wrote:
>>>>One reason was that china was exempt, for god's sake.
>>>
>>>and that's a good reason to sit back and do nothing while the planet goes
>>>to hell, is it ?
>>
>>
>> Not at all. But it's a good reason not to join a treaty that would hurt
>> us.
>
> No it isn't. You can't expect every country in the world to be there on
> day one. If the rich countries set a good example then the others can be
> persuaded, given time.

If you say so. I think China will do what China wants to do, regardless of
whether we set a good example or not.

Rudy wrote:
> "Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>mark wrote:
>>
>>>>"US environmental standards" ?
>>>>
>>>>There must be a reason why GWB won't sign the Kyoto protocol.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/us.html
>>>
>>>
>>>One reason was that china was exempt, for god's sake.
>>
>>and that's a good reason to sit back and do nothing while the planet
>>goes to hell, is it ?
>
>
> Bob,
>
> you crack me up.......I am not an economist and I consider myself a
> conservative. I am betting you are niether.

well, you're wrong there.

> But do you really believe
> there are any sane, honest and hardworking american citizens who prefer bad
> air...bad water...desolate forests....wildlife confined to a zoo etc?

No, of course not, but "sane, honest and hardworking" certainly doesn't
describe the CEOs who put this year's bottom line before their social
responsibilities, or the managers who are set near-impossible targets.
And even the good folks mostly put their head in the sand and hope the
problem will go away.

The Kyoto Protocol is NOT a bad treaty - anyone who believes that has
been paying too much attention to GWB - and Clinton's administration
recognized that and signed it. All the developed countries except the
US have ratified it - even Russia for christ's sake !

> Everyone, but for the nutcases recognize that environmental issues are
> important. The difference, it seems, has to do with our beliefs a solution.
> Any solution that costs US jobs has to be considered carefully. Nothing can
> wreck the environment faster than poverty. A simple glance around the world
> will show that.

No, sorry. The developed countries produce most of the pollution and
they are the ones who can afford to do something about it.

Ask yourself - how much are YOU prepared to pay to give your
grand-children breathable air and drinkable water? And the later you
leave it the more it will cost.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:26:01 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's tough to buy
>american, even though I like to think I would if I could afford to.

It's tougher because American quality isn't really much better (if at
all) than Chinese quality. I'd have no problem paying top dollar for
a US made tool if it was head-and-shoulders above the competition in
quality, but unfortunately, I've found that in many cases, the US tool
is no better, or worse inferior, than the import stuff that's much
cheaper.

I buy quality for the price, regardless of where it comes from. If
the US wants to get my money, they need to pony up the quality.

I posted this article before but it fits in better here. It is an
article about how economist Paul Samuelson has done an about face on
globalism and says it will cause grave problems in the country that is
pushing all its labor off-shore, specifically mentioning China.

This is the quote I especially like:

"Samuelson's insight is that if a low-wage country like China suddenly
makes a major productivity leap in an industry formerly led by the
United States, the result can be a net negative for the American
people. Although American consumers may benefit via low-low prices at
Wal-Mart, their gains may be more than outweighed by large losses
sustained by laid-off American workers."

As before, I am hesitant to quote the entire article because of
copyright laws
but here is the url to read it yourself:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8521

"Jack Casuso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Why do Americans buy so much bottled water then?

IMHO there is a sucker born every 10 seconds. I would imagine 10% have a
good excuse. Much cheaper to filter your own water than to pay some to
filter it for you.

If this makes you feel better, Chinese are buying stuffs from many
other Asian countries (most of them are US allies), assembling those
stuffs together and selling the finished products to US. In a way, the
large trade deficit with China is simply a repackaging of the large
trade deficit that US used to have with other Asian countries. Now the
trade deficit takes a detour to China and get re-labeled as a trade
deficit with China.

China has very little natural resource other than human resource. If
China needs to sell something, China needs to import it from foreign
countries in a form of raw materials or partially finished components.
That is the reason China has trade deficits with the rest of the Asian
countries (particularly Japan). In the end, China has a small surplus;
this is not like China is rolling in money. Please bear in mind that
China sells a lot of stuff to US, but US also sells a lot of stuffs
(like military equipments) to Asian countries, and those Asian
countries sells a lot of stuffs to China. This is like a loop.
Therefore, we cannot simply look at the trade balance with China in
isolation. We need to look at the big picture.

If US wants to improve its overall trade balance, US needs to sell
more stuff to the rest of the world. US has plenty of raw materials
that can sell -- start by opening more oil fields in Alaska. This is a
question of whether US (government and people) has the will to do
this.

The other way is to cut the defense budget or downsize the government,
and channel the money (in the form of tax saving) to private sectors
in order to increase the capital investment on US industrials. This is
to improve the productivity of US industrials. Honestly, I don't know
if this will work though (US companies could send the money aboard and
opened a state of the art factory in China); therefore, I don't say
anything more on this.

There are other things that US can do well and could have sold well.
High tech military equipments are things that US is doing very well
and could have sold well. Afterall, US has spent so much money
developing those weapons. But for one reason or another, US cannot
simply sell these high tech stuffs to any country discriminably. This
means US has very great stuffs that US could have sold but cannot
sell.

In other words, there are many great stuffs that US could have sold,
but cannot sell for some reasons. This will go a long way explaining
why US has a large trade deficit.

If US doesn't want to sell more stuffs to the world, US will need to
find a way to buy fewer stuffs from the rest of the world either
voluntarily or being forced on. Seem like if the budget deficit keeps
increasing like this, US currency may drop its value. IF this
happened, we would not afford to buy that many stuffs from the rest of
the world, and the trade deficit would be taken care of in this way.
Oh well...

Jay Chan

> Ultimately, in a global economy, most of the world must be just barely
> above subsistence level. As countries such as China raise there
> standard of living those on the US and Europe must drop to compensate.

I don't think so. Currently, Chinese government is trying many things
to boost internal consumption. Things like many long stretch of
holiday weeks to allow people to travel far and away to spend money.
Basically, China cannot rely on foreign market to cure China
unemployment problem; the foreign market is simply not large enough
for all the products from China. China will have to cure the problem
by increasing domestic consumption. With China already in WTO, this
means US companies have a chance to get a piece of the increasing
Chinese market. The key is to sell products that match the need in
that market. US can sell raw material to China, or US can sell
finished products from highly automated factories (to keep cost down).

This will be a win-win situation. There will be short term pain both
in China and in other countries. In the long term, the global market
will be bigger. When we add the growing India market into the mix, the
global market will be even bigger. And when we add a recovering Russia
into the mix, the global market will be bigger and bigger...

Of course, US would lose the opportunity of gaining Chinese market
share to other countries if US was only concerning of what market they
would lose instead of what market they would gain. Luckily, this
doesn't seem to be what is happening considering the fact that large
number of US companies are actively marketing in China.

Jay Chan

> I am so thankful that my son is working for a company making
> war machines right now because that is all that I see that is
> safe in the US manufacturing area.

This is a part of the problem. US is spending way too much money on
military, and US cannot just sell the military products to any other
country. This means US is sinking a lot of money on something that it
cannot sell freely. If US had cut its spending on military and others,
given the tax saving to private companies to encourage capital
investment (_in_ US), US could have many many state of the art
factories that produce many wonderful products -- and at a low cost;
that would have sold well in the domestic and global market.

Jay Chan

> The Chinese are catching up to us on the total CO2. The per capita is way
> down, but it is a matter or ratios in a highly populated but not fully
> industrialized country.

Unfortunately, this is true. With more people getting richer, they
start driving cars around instead of riding bicyles. This increases
the CO2 emission and pollution in China.

I heard that China will be using a different type of nuclear power
plants to produce electricity, and its by-products is hydrogen that
will probably be used in fuel cells or in the form of liquid hydrogen
that will power cars. Hopefully, this will significantly reduce CO2
emssion and pollution. Unfortunately this is all long term. I don't
see any short term solution.

Jay Chan

> There simply aren't enough resources in the world for all of the
> population to exist at U.S./Europe standard of living.

Not sure about Europe. But I would not suggest any country to follow
US standard of living -- just too wasteful. Whatever energy saving in
using better isulation material and efficient heating system is being
used up by building bigger and bigger hourses. I am sure this world
will collapse if every country tries to duplicate US standard of
living. The trick is not to exactly follow US standard of living.

For example, if every Chinese wants to build a house like a regular
house in US suburban neighborhood. China will run out of land in a
very short time. Therefore, this is impractical to expect a house like
this in China -- there is just not enough land. Something that a
regular Chinese should hope for is a multiple floors apartment
building. Actually, this is not a bad thing to live in a city or a big
town considering the fact that many US people love to live in New York
City (if they can afford an apartment in NYC).

I believe one of the reason why many US people want to move out from
the cities is to avoid the racial tension and the consequence of
racial tension. This situation is simply not applicable to many other
countries. Hence, there is less likely to have a large number of
people moving out of the cities in other countries.

In other words, there is really no reason to expect everyone in the
world to _be_able_ to live like US people, nor expect everyone in the
world to _want_ to live like US people.

In long term, people in China will get a good living standard, and
they will get this in a different way from US. They will be living in
MEGA cities, instead of living in big houses in suburban.

Obviously, if someone is living in an apartment in a city, he will
need fewer furnitures to fill up the empty space, will not need a lot
of applicants, will not need a convection oven or a large refrigrator
(because he will eat out more often than not), will not need to fool
around with a lawn mower, will not need to drive a car, ...etc. He can
cut down a lot of spending without affecting his quality of life.

Of course, if we strictly limit to "US standard of living", we can
safely assume that the rest of the world cannot afford it.

Jay Chan

> >I heard that China will be using a different type of nuclear power
> >plants to produce electricity, and its by-products is hydrogen that
> >will probably be used in fuel cells or in the form of liquid hydrogen
> >that will power cars. Hopefully, this will significantly reduce CO2
> >emssion and pollution. Unfortunately this is all long term. I don't
> >see any short term solution.
>
> China is planning to use output from some of its future
> nuclear plants to produce hydrogen, but that's not a
> function of the new design. The "new design" is actually
> an evolution and refinement of an old one from the 1950's
> that the US and Europe decided not to use. The most
> important aspect of it is that it is largely immune to meltdown.

I hear you. This was exactly the reason why I said it is a "different"
design instead of saying that it is a "new" design. I used this term
to mean that it is "different" from the conventional nuclear power
plants that we normally see in US.

Glad to hear that people is open to the idea of using nuclear power. I
was wondering if someone might jump in and lecture me about the
"evils" of using nuclear power.

Jay Chan

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:05:11 GMT, patrick conroy
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In August, the trade deficit with China climbed to a record $18.1
>billion

I buy from wherever makes it best. If this is China (my titanium bike
frame), then I'll happily buy Chinese.

The solution to an excessive trade in cheap crap is not to buy cheap
crap. We're all too affluent - far too much property around means that
ownership has itself been devalued. How can you take pride in a piece
of furniture when it's just $25 from Ikea ? Have less - but have
better.

On 15 Oct 2004 05:14:40 -0700, [email protected] (Ray Kinzler)
wrote:

>economist Paul Samuelson has done an about face on
>globalism and says it will cause grave problems in the country that is
>pushing all its labor off-shore, specifically mentioning China.

This is something Brits of my Dad's generation realised twenty years
ago, when that bloody Thatcher woman closed down manufacturing in
favour of a "service" economy. You can't all survive just by taking
in each other's washing. If no-one makes anything any more, then the
whole business eventually grinds to a halt. Outsourcing manufacturing
to China is perhaps a bigger issue in the USA than in the UK, simply
because we already lost so much of our manufacturing 15 years ago.

--
Smert' spamionam

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:58:20 -0700, "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com>
wrote:

>
>"Jack Casuso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> snip > "so polluted, the people who live nearby have to bring in bottled
>> water to
>> drink."
>>
>> Why do Americans buy so much bottled water then?
>
>Because they have more money than they know what to do with and they're
>stupid.
>>
>

some of us. lots of us live in places where we've polluted our local
water supplies.... where I live it's impossible to get a well drilling
permit- I'm on top of a TCE plume.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:12:11 -0700, "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com>
wrote:

>
>"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:08:28 -0400, "Eric Anderson"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I agree with what you are all saying here. I am so thankful that my son
>is
>> >working for a company making war machines right now because that is all
>that
>> >I see that is safe in the US manufacturing area. I went to Sam's club
>today
>> >and wondered around looking at where the products were made. Almost
>> >everything I saw with any real manufacturing content (except washers,
>dryers
>> >and some tools) were made in China. Scares the heck out of me.
>> >
>> >People like Rush Limbaugh seem to believe that we have always found a way
>to
>> >compete in the past. I am looking for someone to tell me how except for
>a
>> >very few areas (like high tech war machines).
>>
>> Industrial grade equipment (excluding forklifts, for the most part)
>> almost always has a made in the USA tag on it, as far as I've seen in
>> any factory around here. I can't imagine using a brake press that was
>> made in China out of plastic and tin. Maybe it is all dying out, but
>> it really doesn't seem like it on the production floor.
>
>You mean all that American industrial equipment like Okuma, Hitachi Seiki,
>Mazak, Mori Seiki, Komatsu, Matsuura, Karaki ect? Yep, use that stuff daily.
>How about that English made Bridgeport?
>

All right, I'll give you Mazak and Bridgeport. Honestly, though- I've
never seen the others around here, with the exception of forklifts.
This is probably a case where I should open my mouth and insert foot.
It just seems like in a lot of cases where I'm at people are only
unemployed because they don't want to work, and I have a hard time
trusting anything the media tells me anymore.

> How can you make something useful, ship it halfway around the world, and
> everyone makes money on a $17 product? Pretty impressive when you think
> about it.
>
> -- Mark

Welll......it's all in the labor, and lack of environmental laws. I read an
amazing article about what sometimes happens to the world's old computers.
China has enormous landfills made up of only junker pcs. Labor is so cheap,
it is actually economically feasible to have people actually stripping them
for parts, screws, wire, even down to the level of using acid to leach the
precious metals out of the circuit boards. The areas where they do this are
so polluted, the people who live nearby have to bring in bottled water to
drink. Scary.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:45:39 GMT, "Rudy" <[email protected]>
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


>you crack me up.......I am not an economist and I consider myself a
>conservative. I am betting you are niether. But do you really believe
>there are any sane, honest and hardworking american citizens who prefer bad
>air...bad water...desolate forests....wildlife confined to a zoo etc?

No of course not. But everybody wants somebody else to take it on the
jaw to fix it.

>Everyone, but for the nutcases recognize that environmental issues are
>important. The difference, it seems, has to do with our beliefs a solution.
>Any solution that costs US jobs has to be considered carefully. Nothing can
>wreck the environment faster than poverty. A simple glance around the world
>will show that.

>Does anyone else find it ironic that in a thread discussing the loss of US
>manufacturing and therefore the loss of mfg jobs, that failure to sign the
>Kyoto treaty should be bemoaned.

errr.. but when the Kyoto agreement has _not_ been signed, the loss of
manufacturing and jobs is still happening. If all the rich nations
signed the agreement and balckballed the nations that did not, then if
China refused to sign, jobs would come away from China, and back to
the US!

*****************************************************
Have you noticed that people always run from what
they _need_ toward what they want?????

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:48:56 -0700, Tim Douglass
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:16:17 -0400, "Eric Anderson"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I am afraid you are right there. The question is, how long will it take
>>their standard of living to reach the level we are when our standards of
>>living cross? What will our standard of living be at that time? Come on,
>>Paul Samuelson, draw us a curve of THAT.
>
>It's actually pretty straightforward. Only the time question is hard
>to figure. Given current population levels our standard of living will
>need to drop down well into what we consider "developing nation"
>status before we will be competitive on the world market. Expect to
>see an economy where a car is a luxury and where 75% or more of your
>income goes to subsistence - i.e. food and minimal clothing. It is not
>a pretty picture, but the world's supply of resources is inadequate to
>give everyone much above that.
>
>Tim Douglass
>
>http://www.DouglassClan.com


I think america will become a pirate nation before that. we have too
many weapons and seem to keep putting people with the blood lust and
the power lust in charge of them.

GregP said:

>On 18 Oct 2004 11:20:48 -0700, [email protected] (Jay Chan) wrote:
>
>>
>>I heard that China will be using a different type of nuclear power
>>plants to produce electricity, and its by-products is hydrogen that
>>will probably be used in fuel cells or in the form of liquid hydrogen
>>that will power cars. Hopefully, this will significantly reduce CO2
>>emssion and pollution. Unfortunately this is all long term. I don't
>>see any short term solution.
>
> China is planning to use output from some of its future
> nuclear plants to produce hydrogen, but that's not a
> function of the new design. The "new design" is actually
> an evolution and refinement of an old one from the 1950's
> that the US and Europe decided not to use. The most
> important aspect of it is that it is largely immune to meltdown.

I believe it's called the Pebble Bed Reactor. The Pebble Bed Reactor
is an advanced nuclear reactor design. This technology claims a
dramatically higher level of safety and efficiency. Instead of water,
it uses helium as the coolant, at very high temperature, to drive a
turbine directly. This eliminates the complex steam management system
from the design, and increases the transfer efficiency (ratio of
electrical output to thermal output) to about 50%.

The technology in various forms is under development by MIT, the South
African power utility Eskom, General Atomic (U.S.), the Dutch company
Romaha B.V., Adams Atomic Engines, a U.S. Company, and the Chinese
company Chinergy, working with Tsinghua University.

FWIW,

Greg G.

This is correct. And the Korean appliances Best Buy is pushing is high end
stuff, not the cheap stuff.

> Right, the washers and dryers are made in Korea. Take a look at the
larger
> appliances and more and more are imports. Places like Best Buy are
pushing
> a lot of them

Jay Chan wrote:
>[snip] >
> Glad to hear that people is open to the idea of using nuclear power. I
> was wondering if someone might jump in and lecture me about the
> "evils" of using nuclear power.
>
> Jay Chan

1. A terrorist will crash a plane into it and we will all go ka-boom-boom.
2. A diddly-dip will accidentally crash his car/boat/plane into it and
we will all go ka-boom-boom.
3. There is no where to store the leftover waste (NIMBY!) so it will be
left in piles along side the road and we will all glow in the dark and
die of bippy cancer.
4. There is no where to store the leftover waste (NIMBY!) so it will be
used by terrorists to make dirty bombs and we will all glow in the dark
and die of bippy cancer.
5. There will be an accidental melt-down all the way to China which will
piss them off enough to launch missles and we will all go ka-boom-boom.

Stuff like that, eh?
mahalo,
jo4hn

"Jack Casuso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> snip > "so polluted, the people who live nearby have to bring in bottled
> water to
> drink."
>
> Why do Americans buy so much bottled water then?

Because they have more money than they know what to do with and they're
stupid.
>

On 18 Oct 2004 10:22:26 -0700, [email protected] (Jay Chan) wrote:

>> Ultimately, in a global economy, most of the world must be just barely
>> above subsistence level. As countries such as China raise there
>> standard of living those on the US and Europe must drop to compensate.
>
>I don't think so. Currently, Chinese government is trying many things
>to boost internal consumption. Things like many long stretch of
>holiday weeks to allow people to travel far and away to spend money.
>Basically, China cannot rely on foreign market to cure China
>unemployment problem; the foreign market is simply not large enough
>for all the products from China. China will have to cure the problem
>by increasing domestic consumption. With China already in WTO, this
>means US companies have a chance to get a piece of the increasing
>Chinese market. The key is to sell products that match the need in
>that market. US can sell raw material to China, or US can sell
>finished products from highly automated factories (to keep cost down).
>
>This will be a win-win situation. There will be short term pain both
>in China and in other countries. In the long term, the global market
>will be bigger. When we add the growing India market into the mix, the
>global market will be even bigger. And when we add a recovering Russia
>into the mix, the global market will be bigger and bigger...
>
>Of course, US would lose the opportunity of gaining Chinese market
>share to other countries if US was only concerning of what market they
>would lose instead of what market they would gain. Luckily, this
>doesn't seem to be what is happening considering the fact that large
>number of US companies are actively marketing in China.

There simply aren't enough resources in the world for all of the
population to exist at U.S./Europe standard of living.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Tim Douglass wrote:

> If we wanted to level the trade deficit all we would have to do is
> require that any company shipping goods to the US had to document that
> their production was meeting all US environmental standards. You would
> see production moving back to the US in droves.

"US environmental standards" ?

There must be a reason why GWB won't sign the Kyoto protocol.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/us.html

"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 18 Oct 2004 10:22:26 -0700, [email protected] (Jay Chan) wrote:
>

>
> There simply aren't enough resources in the world for all of the
> population to exist at U.S./Europe standard of living.
>
> Tim Douglass
>
> http://www.DouglassClan.com


he's right, I did the math..... oh, .wait a minute, do you carry the
two?........divide by the inverse? Well it's simple anyway......trust me, I
am enlightened

On 18 Oct 2004 11:20:48 -0700, [email protected] (Jay Chan) wrote:

>
>I heard that China will be using a different type of nuclear power
>plants to produce electricity, and its by-products is hydrogen that
>will probably be used in fuel cells or in the form of liquid hydrogen
>that will power cars. Hopefully, this will significantly reduce CO2
>emssion and pollution. Unfortunately this is all long term. I don't
>see any short term solution.

China is planning to use output from some of its future
nuclear plants to produce hydrogen, but that's not a
function of the new design. The "new design" is actually
an evolution and refinement of an old one from the 1950's
that the US and Europe decided not to use. The most
important aspect of it is that it is largely immune to meltdown.

"Robert Galloway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>We are the result. Fat, dumb and happy. ....

> bob g.
>

Bob,

You don't sound happy <g>

R

Filter?

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:33:12 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Jack Casuso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Why do Americans buy so much bottled water then?
>
>IMHO there is a sucker born every 10 seconds. I would imagine 10% have a
>good excuse. Much cheaper to filter your own water than to pay some to
>filter it for you.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Give me a break. Blood lust, Power lust? A bunch of Europeans came
upon a continent, rich with resources and populated by stone age people.
They did what anybody with their moral and ethical background would do
and exploited it. We are the result. Fat, dumb and happy. The
solution to everyone having "enough" on this planet is population
control. In the short, selfish term, it means population control in the
United States. There's a lot to go around on this planet if the number
to whom it must "go around" is small. If that number is sufficiently
large, there can never be enough to go around. Sooner or later, humans
will take steps to control their numbers or natural forces will
intervene and it won't be pretty.

bob g.

[email protected] wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:48:56 -0700, Tim Douglass
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:16:17 -0400, "Eric Anderson"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I am afraid you are right there. The question is, how long will it take
>>>their standard of living to reach the level we are when our standards of
>>>living cross? What will our standard of living be at that time? Come on,
>>>Paul Samuelson, draw us a curve of THAT.
>>
>>It's actually pretty straightforward. Only the time question is hard
>>to figure. Given current population levels our standard of living will
>>need to drop down well into what we consider "developing nation"
>>status before we will be competitive on the world market. Expect to
>>see an economy where a car is a luxury and where 75% or more of your
>>income goes to subsistence - i.e. food and minimal clothing. It is not
>>a pretty picture, but the world's supply of resources is inadequate to
>>give everyone much above that.
>>
>>Tim Douglass
>>
>>http://www.DouglassClan.com
>
>
>
> I think america will become a pirate nation before that. we have too
> many weapons and seem to keep putting people with the blood lust and
> the power lust in charge of them.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:37:22 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Allen Epps wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Martin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tim Douglass wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If we wanted to level the trade deficit all we would have to do is
>>>>require that any company shipping goods to the US had to document that
>>>>their production was meeting all US environmental standards. You would
>>>>see production moving back to the US in droves.
>>>
>>>"US environmental standards" ?
>>>
>>>There must be a reason why GWB won't sign the Kyoto protocol.
>>>
>>>http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/us.html
>>
>>
>> Same reason John Kerry says's it's a bad treaty. Take a look at the
>> interviews of both candidates in this months Field and Stream magazine.
>> Here's a link.
>>
>> http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/article/0,13199,702
>> 716-8,00.html
>>
>> You'll have to paste the whole thing together or just go to
>>
>> www.fieldandstream.com
>>
>> and take a look. It's a pretty even handed look at both candidates but
>> I'm in the already decided catogory myself. The other thing to read is
>> the Theodore Roosevelt Editorial from 1927 (obviously published after
>> his death) well worth a read.
>>
>> Allen
>
>That's all very well, Allen, but saving the planet means sacrifices,
>both jobs and money, and you can't expect politicians to support such
>ideas with an election looming.
>
>But one thing is certain : our children and grand-children will hate us
>for our utter selfishness and complacency.

This one seems like another political red herring. I know it used to
happen all the time, but none of the manufacturers I've worked for in
the last 14 years have taken a devil-may-care attitude towards the
environment. They've all invested in keeping the air and water clean,
partially because of the EPA, and partially because they don't care to
mess up their own backyards.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 03:49:32 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> How can you make something useful, ship it halfway around the world, and
>> everyone makes money on a $17 product? Pretty impressive when you think
>> about it.
>>
>> -- Mark
>
>Welll......it's all in the labor, and lack of environmental laws. I read an
>amazing article about what sometimes happens to the world's old computers.
>China has enormous landfills made up of only junker pcs. Labor is so cheap,
>it is actually economically feasible to have people actually stripping them
>for parts, screws, wire, even down to the level of using acid to leach the
>precious metals out of the circuit boards. The areas where they do this are
>so polluted, the people who live nearby have to bring in bottled water to
>drink. Scary.
>
If we wanted to level the trade deficit all we would have to do is
require that any company shipping goods to the US had to document that
their production was meeting all US environmental standards. You would
see production moving back to the US in droves.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:08:28 -0400, "Eric Anderson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I agree with what you are all saying here. I am so thankful that my son is
>working for a company making war machines right now because that is all that
>I see that is safe in the US manufacturing area. I went to Sam's club today
>and wondered around looking at where the products were made. Almost
>everything I saw with any real manufacturing content (except washers, dryers
>and some tools) were made in China. Scares the heck out of me.
>
>People like Rush Limbaugh seem to believe that we have always found a way to
>compete in the past. I am looking for someone to tell me how except for a
>very few areas (like high tech war machines).

We will compete again when the standard of living in those other
countries rises to where it is no longer cost effective to transport
the goods. Of course that will also be coupled with a drop in our own
standard of living, but that may not be all bad.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Never heard of a filter?

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Filter?
>

In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:

> The solution to an excessive trade in cheap crap is not to buy cheap
> crap. We're all too affluent - far too much property around means that
> ownership has itself been devalued. How can you take pride in a piece
> of furniture when it's just $25 from Ikea ? Have less - but have
> better.

Andy, Andy, Andy. I know you've been contributing to the group for quite
a while - with some excellent responses, BTW - but maybe you didn't
realize that most here are Americans...

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger

In article <[email protected]>,
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sometimes you have no choice. I went to buy a toaster recently. Every
> single one was made in China.

We have a tank of a toaster. The Peterbuilt of toasters. It's a c.1955,
chrome and bakelight Kenmore that I picked up for a buck at my local
thrift store. Made in USA. Pops up a beautiful piece of hot toast just
begging for a slab of butter.

Have also forked over a few bucks for a chrome and bakelight waffle
iron, chrome clothes iron, and a polished aluminum(?) B&D drill - all
made in the US of A. How many of the plastic, Asian-import toasters,
irons and drills you all are buying today will still be working as the
day they were boxed at the factory come 50 years?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger

I agree with what you are all saying here. I am so thankful that my son is
working for a company making war machines right now because that is all that
I see that is safe in the US manufacturing area. I went to Sam's club today
and wondered around looking at where the products were made. Almost
everything I saw with any real manufacturing content (except washers, dryers
and some tools) were made in China. Scares the heck out of me.

People like Rush Limbaugh seem to believe that we have always found a way to
compete in the past. I am looking for someone to tell me how except for a
very few areas (like high tech war machines).

"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 03:49:32 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> How can you make something useful, ship it halfway around the world,
and
> >> everyone makes money on a $17 product? Pretty impressive when you
think
> >> about it.
> >>
> >> -- Mark
> >
> >Welll......it's all in the labor, and lack of environmental laws. I read
an
> >amazing article about what sometimes happens to the world's old
computers.
> >China has enormous landfills made up of only junker pcs. Labor is so
cheap,
> >it is actually economically feasible to have people actually stripping
them
> >for parts, screws, wire, even down to the level of using acid to leach
the
> >precious metals out of the circuit boards. The areas where they do this
are
> >so polluted, the people who live nearby have to bring in bottled water to
> >drink. Scary.
> >
> If we wanted to level the trade deficit all we would have to do is
> require that any company shipping goods to the US had to document that
> their production was meeting all US environmental standards. You would
> see production moving back to the US in droves.
>
> Tim Douglass
>
> http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:10:14 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> Sometimes you have no choice. I went to buy a toaster recently. Every
> single one was made in China. Tools are getting more and more from
> overseas even if we want to buy US.

The daughter wanted an over the range microwave. We strolled down the
micro aisle at the borg, and she opens an E-wave. I says "Made in Korea".
I says "you don't want that". As we opened all the others, GE, Maytag,
Fridge, all the "US" made brands - every damned microwave is made in
Korea! I would guess, after taking a look, they all may have come out of
the same factory.

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:27:44 +0000, Leon wrote:

>
> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:10:14 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>> Sometimes you have no choice. I went to buy a toaster recently.
>>> Every
>>> single one was made in China. Tools are getting more and more from
>>> overseas even if we want to buy US.
>>
>> The daughter wanted an over the range microwave. We strolled down the
>> micro aisle at the borg, and she opens an E-wave. I says "Made in
>> Korea". I says "you don't want that". As we opened all the others, GE,
>> Maytag, Fridge, all the "US" made brands - every damned microwave is
>> made in Korea! I would guess, after taking a look, they all may have
>> come out of the same factory.
>
> IMHO get the tool that offers the most value to you personally. Buying
> more expensive or inferior hurts every body including the factory worker.
> The locals need to learn to compete if they expect to remain in business.
> One day it will be too late to learn to compete. Now is a good tome to
> learn.

Soooo, since EVERY microwave is made in Korea, how do I tell which is the
best value and what do the "locals" have to do with it, and who are the
"locals" competing with, and isn't it already a little "late"?

-Doug

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

Rb did say:
>
> He probably didn't, because that mental squirt doesn't have a clue
> about anything. Look at the banal and useless things he makes and
> takes such pride in! Talk about someone who ain't got a life! His real
> name must be Andy Dingleberry, and the world is a worse place since
> his pitiful mother spawned him/it. I wish he'd make himself a coffin
> out of that scrap wood he uses, and bury himself in it alive, and
> very, very deep.
>
> Peace, Rb

Jeez, Rb... What'd AD do to you? That's at least two death wishing flames
today. Not that I care about AD one way or the other, I'm just curious.

Peace???!!! Not with AD obviously.


--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

WoodMangler did say:

> ace, Rb
>
> Jeez, Rb... What'd AD do to you? That's at least two death wishing flames
> today. Not that I care about AD one way or the other, I'm just curious.
>

Looking at your headers, they match the news server of only one other
person on the rec. Can't say why you despise AD so much, he didn't seem to
participate too much in the political threads you were so fond of until
recently.

Tim Douglass did say:

> Expect to
> see an economy where a car is a luxury and where 75% or more of your
> income goes to subsistence - i.e. food and minimal clothing. I

Quite a bleak picture when you consider that the average American pays 55%
of their income in taxes of one sort or another. Doesn't leave nearly
enough for your 75% subsistence requirement.

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

Robert Galloway did say:

> Give me a break. Blood lust, Power lust? A bunch of Europeans came
> upon a continent, rich with resources and populated by stone age people.
> They did what anybody with their moral and ethical background would do
> and exploited it. We are the result. Fat, dumb and happy.
> bob g.
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> I think america will become a pirate nation before that. we have too
>> many weapons and seem to keep putting people with the blood lust and
>> the power lust in charge of them.

Fat, dumb and happy?!?! Speak for yourself. Personally, I've still got a
bit o' that blood and power lust. It's got me thinking upgrading the motor
in my Jet tablesaw, and removing all safety guards from my other power
tools.

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:08:28 -0400, "Eric Anderson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I agree with what you are all saying here. I am so thankful that my son is
>working for a company making war machines right now because that is all that
>I see that is safe in the US manufacturing area. I went to Sam's club today
>and wondered around looking at where the products were made. Almost
>everything I saw with any real manufacturing content (except washers, dryers
>and some tools) were made in China. Scares the heck out of me.
>
>People like Rush Limbaugh seem to believe that we have always found a way to
>compete in the past. I am looking for someone to tell me how except for a
>very few areas (like high tech war machines).

Industrial grade equipment (excluding forklifts, for the most part)
almost always has a made in the USA tag on it, as far as I've seen in
any factory around here. I can't imagine using a brake press that was
made in China out of plastic and tin. Maybe it is all dying out, but
it really doesn't seem like it on the production floor.

>"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 03:49:32 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> How can you make something useful, ship it halfway around the world,
>and
>> >> everyone makes money on a $17 product? Pretty impressive when you
>think
>> >> about it.
>> >>
>> >> -- Mark
>> >
>> >Welll......it's all in the labor, and lack of environmental laws. I read
>an
>> >amazing article about what sometimes happens to the world's old
>computers.
>> >China has enormous landfills made up of only junker pcs. Labor is so
>cheap,
>> >it is actually economically feasible to have people actually stripping
>them
>> >for parts, screws, wire, even down to the level of using acid to leach
>the
>> >precious metals out of the circuit boards. The areas where they do this
>are
>> >so polluted, the people who live nearby have to bring in bottled water to
>> >drink. Scary.
>> >
>> If we wanted to level the trade deficit all we would have to do is
>> require that any company shipping goods to the US had to document that
>> their production was meeting all US environmental standards. You would
>> see production moving back to the US in droves.
>>
>> Tim Douglass
>>
>> http://www.DouglassClan.com
>

"patrick conroy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
> [ They don't mention 'dorkin tools, but I'm sure we in there
> somewhere... ]

Sometimes you have no choice. I went to buy a toaster recently. Every
single one was made in China. Tools are getting more and more from overseas
even if we want to buy US.

On 15 Oct 2004 05:14:40 -0700, [email protected] (Ray Kinzler)
wrote:

>I posted this article before but it fits in better here. It is an
>article about how economist Paul Samuelson has done an about face on
>globalism and says it will cause grave problems in the country that is
>pushing all its labor off-shore, specifically mentioning China.
>
>This is the quote I especially like:
>
>"Samuelson's insight is that if a low-wage country like China suddenly
>makes a major productivity leap in an industry formerly led by the
>United States, the result can be a net negative for the American
>people. Although American consumers may benefit via low-low prices at
>Wal-Mart, their gains may be more than outweighed by large losses
>sustained by laid-off American workers."

Ultimately, in a global economy, most of the world must be just barely
above subsistence level. As countries such as China raise there
standard of living those on the US and Europe must drop to compensate.

The good news is that as the standard of living drops the value of our
time drops and it is less costly to spend many hours in the woodshop.
The bad news is that you will be doing it neander style. (some may
consider that good news as well)

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"patrick conroy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> In August, the trade deficit with China climbed to a record $18.1
> billion, pushed higher by a surge in demand for cell phones, toys and
> games, televisions and VCRs as U.S. retailers stocked their shelves in
> advance of the holiday shopping season.
>
>
> [ They don't mention 'dorkin tools, but I'm sure we in there
> somewhere... ]


If it makes you feel better, putting the trade gap into perspective, the
record $18.1 billion might amount to 1 or 2 hours of consumer spending in
the U.S.

Yeah. A kitchen sink filter, refrigerator filter, or whole house filter.
Or buy the PUR water pitcher and you get crystal clear water. Much of the
bottled water is simply city water filtered and bottled.


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Filter?
>
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:33:12 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Jack Casuso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Why do Americans buy so much bottled water then?
>>
>>IMHO there is a sucker born every 10 seconds. I would imagine 10% have a
>>good excuse. Much cheaper to filter your own water than to pay some to
>>filter it for you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

"Ray Kinzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I posted this article before but it fits in better here. It is an
> article about how economist Paul Samuelson has done an about face on
> globalism and says it will cause grave problems in the country that is
> pushing all its labor off-shore, specifically mentioning China.
>
> This is the quote I especially like:
>
> "Samuelson's insight is that if a low-wage country like China suddenly
> makes a major productivity leap in an industry formerly led by the
> United States, the result can be a net negative for the American
> people. Although American consumers may benefit via low-low prices at
> Wal-Mart, their gains may be more than outweighed by large losses
> sustained by laid-off American workers."


I suspect that the potential laid-off American workers had better start
becoming more competitive and learn to survive in world economy.

Actually I think that his reply makes a lot of sense. Americans buy too
much for the sake of owning things. To do this they must look at price and
not quality, then they complain about how poorly everything is made as they
go out to buy more cheap stuff to replace the cheap stuff they don't need in
the first place. If we all bought only what we needed and bought quality
items we would all have more money in the bank and be living better. If you
don't think Americans own to much stuff, spend a weekend going to yard
sales.
"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The solution to an excessive trade in cheap crap is not to buy cheap
> > crap. We're all too affluent - far too much property around means that
> > ownership has itself been devalued. How can you take pride in a piece
> > of furniture when it's just $25 from Ikea ? Have less - but have
> > better.
>
> Andy, Andy, Andy. I know you've been contributing to the group for quite
> a while - with some excellent responses, BTW - but maybe you didn't
> realize that most here are Americans...
>
> --
> Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
> ____
>
> "To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
> -- Ann Hayman Zwinger