Trump calls it quits

I knew it was a long shot with Trump, but he was the only one I was actually enthused about voting for. He was the only one who would even dare mention the word TARIFF and the only one who wanted to stand up against China.

With him out of the way, I'm throwing all my support to Ron Paul. He's the only current candidate I can stomach. If he doesn't win the primay, and at this point it looks like a long shot, I may end up not even voting at all in 2012.

At this point, it looks almost certain that Obama will get in again for another 4 years. The economy is rebounding. The birther issue has been squashed.

I still wonder what he will do about the 14 trillion dollars of debt. Oh wait! I know! Why not raise taxes! That's what lies ahead. Massive tax increases.

Trump is like a clown; if he changes his mind and decides to run for President, he won't get elected. I really hope that Obama will get re-elected.

Trump is an attention whore who never had any intention of running. He was feeling ignored so decided to run a publicity stunt.

There is a very appropriate definition of the word "Trump" in the urban dictionary

Quote:

---

1. Trump


Northern to midlands slang for a fart, expelling of wind from the anus.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

I knew it was a long shot with Trump, but he was the only one I was actually enthused about voting for. He was the only one who would even dare mention the word TARIFF and the only one who wanted to stand up against China.
Trump is a bloviating idiot...possibly the best representative of the Republicans currently around.


With him out of the way, I'm throwing all my support to Ron Paul. He's the only current candidate I can stomach. If he doesn't win the primay, and at this point it looks like a long shot, I may end up not even voting at all in 2012.
Good.
Don't vote.

At this point, it looks almost certain that Obama will get in again for another 4 years. The economy is rebounding. The birther issue has been squashed.

I still wonder what he will do about the 14 trillion dollars of debt. Oh wait! I know! Why not raise taxes! That's what lies ahead. Massive tax increases.

---

You wouldn't know a "massive tax increase" if it bit you in the ass.
We currently pay the lowest effective tax rate since Eisenhower was President.

Oh, BTW, speaking of taxes...
9, how many new hires at your family business since last years extension of the Bush tax cuts?
IIRC, you said the only thing stopping businesses from hiring was "uncertainty" about onerous taxation, so with that fear taken care of, how much have you grown the job market?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

I knew it was a long shot with Trump, but he was the only one I was actually enthused about voting for.

---

I bet you water your plants with Brawndo
Why? Because it's got what plants crave, it's got electrolytes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

I knew it was a long shot with Trump, but he was the only one I was actually enthused about voting for. He was the only one who would even dare mention the word TARIFF and the only one who wanted to stand up against China.
Trump is a bloviating idiot...possibly the best representative of the Republicans currently around.


With him out of the way, I'm throwing all my support to Ron Paul. He's the only current candidate I can stomach. If he doesn't win the primay, and at this point it looks like a long shot, I may end up not even voting at all in 2012.
Good.
Don't vote.

At this point, it looks almost certain that Obama will get in again for another 4 years. The economy is rebounding. The birther issue has been squashed.

I still wonder what he will do about the 14 trillion dollars of debt. Oh wait! I know! Why not raise taxes! That's what lies ahead. Massive tax increases.

---

You wouldn't know a "massive tax increase" if it bit you in the ass.
We currently pay the lowest effective tax rate since Eisenhower was President.

Oh, BTW, speaking of taxes...
9, how many new hires at your family business since last years extension of the Bush tax cuts?
IIRC, you said the only thing stopping businesses from hiring was "uncertainty" about onerous taxation, so with that fear taken care of, how much have you grown the job market?

---

Yeah, you would know, I guess.


I seriously wonder why anyone would want to pay more in taxes. Why not cut spending rather than pay more in taxes?


Actually, yes we have hired one extra person (one of my cousins). I'll admit it has more to do with the fact that the economy (and hence, demand) has definitely picked up for us, than anything else. And there will be a replacement hired for me, when I leave this summer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

I seriously wonder why anyone would want to pay more in taxes.

---

Maybe because a marginal increase in taxes would mean that the roads don't destroy my car, that firefighters/police and teachers are available, that the library remains open and the populace is literate enough to read...the list goes on.

Let's take as an example one of the "socialist" countries you pretend to abhor- say, Finland.
I'd pay 51% of income in taxes (which far exceeds any tax bracket in the US).
In exchange, I'd get free education through college/graduate degrees, free health care, a national internet service of 100MB/s and a social safety net (food/medical/legal subsidies)
unknown in America.
I cannot afford a fraction of those services in America.

My theoretically more favorable tax rate turns out to a really bad deal when services rendered are compared.
Americans pay more to get less than any industrialized nation on Earth which is the direct result of corporatizing our country.
Delivering less while charging more is the basic tenet of business and this "Underpants= Profit!" mentality is the new cornerstone of the right wing agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Delivering less while charging more is the basic tenet of business and this "Underpants= Profit!" mentality is the new cornerstone of the right wing agenda.

---

To be fair, though it is a cornerstone for the conservative agenda, plenty of liberals have their hands in corporate pockets. Most of the bigger offices involve mingling between corporations and politicians, it's a big stakes game. To not be in bed with them makes it very very difficult to win any major election. So what I'm trying to say is that in a country where commercials are so effective, it's baffling, the country is frakked.

Do anti communists/socialists take out insurance on their property? Are they happy to accept other insurance payers collectively paying for their loss? If the private insurance firms did not make vast profits then our insurance premiums would cost less. I may just have the wrong mindset, in my dotage, to fathom this contradiction out.:whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Do anti communists/socialists take out insurance on their property? Are they happy to accept other insurance payers collectively paying for their loss? If the private insurance firms did not make vast profits then our insurance premiums would cost less. I may just have the wrong mindset, in my dotage, to fathom this contradiction out.:whistling

---

Hah.

I am a contradiction-fathomer from way back.

The trick is to do it 24/7, and not just when you feel like it, or must, due to circumstances.

If you can't do that, try it during your afternoon nap, Bob - warn Missus Bob that you will likely snore a bit more loudly as a consequence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Do anti communists/socialists take out insurance on their property? Are they happy to accept other insurance payers collectively paying for their loss? If the private insurance firms did not make vast profits then our insurance premiums would cost less. I may just have the wrong mindset, in my dotage, to fathom this contradiction out.:whistling

---

Hah.

I am a contradiction-fathomer from way back.

The trick is to do it 24/7, and not just when you feel like it, or must, due to circumstances.

If you can't do that, try it during your afternoon nap, Bob - warn Missus Bob that you will likely snore a bit more loudly as a consequence.

---

My afternoon nap is slipping into 24/7.:) Still can't fathom why the right accepts community insurance.:P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Hah.

I am a contradiction-fathomer from way back.

The trick is to do it 24/7, and not just when you feel like it, or must, due to circumstances.

If you can't do that, try it during your afternoon nap, Bob - warn Missus Bob that you will likely snore a bit more loudly as a consequence.

---

My afternoon nap is slipping into 24/7.:) Still can't fathom why the right accepts community insurance.:P

---

The fact is that costs have lost any sort of association with reality.

Third-party payer is the bugaboo - how ironic, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The fact is that costs have lost any sort of association with reality.

---

Cost and reality have a tenuous association at best...in any consumer transaction (see: diamonds).

America's highest paid CEO runs United Health Group...Stephen Hemsley made 102 MILLION FREAKIN DOLLARS!!! last year (source= Forbes)...so any discussion about health care cost and reality is already warped beyond recognition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The fact is that costs have lost any sort of association with reality.

---

Cost and reality have a tenuous association at best...in any consumer transaction (see: diamonds).

America's highest paid CEO runs United Health Group...Stephen Hemsley made 102 MILLION FREAKIN DOLLARS!!! last year (source= Forbes)...so any discussion about health care cost and reality is already warped beyond recognition.

---

I know how to deal with Mr. Hemsley:

PUT HIM OUT OF BUSINESS!

Eliminate ALL third-party payer programs, including Medicaid/Medicare.

Scratch start - whattaya say?

Who's your Radical, baby? :naughty:

Eliminate Medicare/Medicaid and replace them with what, exactly?
Medicare has administrative costs three times lower than private insurance plans, so what's the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Eliminate Medicare/Medicaid and replace them with what, exactly?

---

Replace them with - here's a novel idea - cash!

The "problem" with medicare is the same as with private insurance - neither has a fucking conscience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Replace them with - here's a novel idea - cash!

---

I'd like to ask you non ideological questions, but I need to borrow from ideological arguments to ask the question.

I'm not going to question the argument that the USA has the best, or some might say worst, healthcare because the conclusion depends on what measurement is used.

It has been suggested that the USA has the most advanced healthcare in the world. The USA has produced a heck of a lot of technological and medical advancements. Certainly the rate of advancement has been phenomenal. While the private sector has played a big role in this, government funding has been very significant.

To the questions.

If it were left entirely to the private sector, the free market, and government funding wasn't part of the equation would we have the tech and medicinal advancements we have today?

Without third party insurance (private or government) picking up some of the tab, we had a $50k tab a while back and we had insurance, would there be enough patients able to afford treatment thus making the advancements in medicine profitable enough for the market to invest?

What would you do with those that really can't afford to see the doctor? If you answer the emergency room, how would you pay for it and how do you reconcile that with your pay cash ideal?


My point being, and I really want to keep ideology out of it, is that while paying cash may force doctors to charge less, I feel the revenue loss could hinder the incentive for advancement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Replace them with - here's a novel idea - cash!

---

I'd like to ask you non ideological questions, but I need to borrow from ideological arguments to ask the question.

I'm not going to question the argument that the USA has the best, or some might say worst, healthcare because the conclusion depends on what measurement is used.

It has been suggested that the USA has the most advanced healthcare in the world. The USA has produced a heck of a lot of technological and medical advancements. Certainly the rate of advancement has been phenomenal. While the private sector has played a big role in this, government funding has been very significant.

To the questions.

If it were left entirely to the private sector, the free market, and government funding wasn't part of the equation would we have the tech and medicinal advancements we have today?

Without third party insurance (private or government) picking up some of the tab, we had a $50k tab a while back and we had insurance, would there be enough patients able to afford treatment thus making the advancements in medicine profitable enough for the market to invest?

What would you do with those that really can't afford to see the doctor? If you answer the emergency room, how would you pay for it and how do you reconcile that with your pay cash ideal?


My point being, and I really want to keep ideology out of it, is that while paying cash may force doctors to charge less, I feel the revenue loss could hinder the incentive for advancement.

---

Here's my non-ideological answer:

The Doctor performs a service - for you - and you receive a bill for those services.

Costs should be a fraction of their current level, and they would be, had third-party payer never existed.

If you end up owing the Doctor, so what?

Nobody seems to have a problem carrying an auto loan or a mortgage, so you've got a medical balance, too.

Big deal.

I've dealt with this in this very forum on many other occasions - try a search.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Here's my non-ideological answer:

The Doctor performs a service - for you - and you receive a bill for those services.

Costs should be a fraction of their current level, and they would be, had third-party payer never existed.
why is it that hospitals generally charge cash payers more than they charge insurance companies for the same treatment? often 3+ times more.
If you end up owing the Doctor, so what?

Many companies go out of business because they are owed money, how many doctors would we have left if they treated patients that can't afford payments? How many doctors would serve poor areas? I see signs in doctors offices stating that uninsured patients have to pay before they see the doctor

Nobody seems to have a problem carrying an auto loan or a mortgage, so you've got a medical balance, too.

Big deal.

But those people have enough wherewithal to obtain a mortgage or car loan in the first place. Someone on minimum wage would at best qualify for a high interest payday loan. What makes you think they could afford to pay off a $50k+ medical debt if they couldn't get a mortgage or car loan and who would lend them the money to see the doctor?
I seem to remember you blaming poor people getting mortgages for busting the housing market, doesn't the same thinking apply here?


I've dealt with this in this very forum on many other occasions - try a search.

---

You didn't answer the question about where we would be in terms of medical advancement if it were purely market driven cash only services. Unless shown otherwise I doubt you have dealt with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Here's my non-ideological answer:

The Doctor performs a service - for you - and you receive a bill for those services.

Costs should be a fraction of their current level, and they would be, had third-party payer never existed.
why is it that hospitals generally charge cash payers more than they charge insurance companies for the same treatment? often 3+ times more.
If you end up owing the Doctor, so what?

Many companies go out of business because they are owed money, how many doctors would we have left if they treated patients that can't afford payments? How many doctors would serve poor areas? I see signs in doctors offices stating that uninsured patients have to pay before they see the doctor

Nobody seems to have a problem carrying an auto loan or a mortgage, so you've got a medical balance, too.

Big deal.

But those people have enough wherewithal to obtain a mortgage or car loan in the first place. Someone on minimum wage would at best qualify for a high interest payday loan. What makes you think they could afford to pay off a $50k+ medical debt if they couldn't get a mortgage or car loan and who would lend them the money to see the doctor?
I seem to remember you blaming poor people getting mortgages for busting the housing market, doesn't the same thinking apply here?


I've dealt with this in this very forum on many other occasions - try a search.

---

You didn't answer the question about where we would be in terms of medical advancement if it were purely market driven cash only services. Unless shown otherwise I doubt you have dealt with this.

---

Without any proofs, I'm going to say we'd be at least as far, perhaps farther, but we'll never know, now...I don't see a way back, anymore, that doesn't involve a total collapse/default of the economic end of healthcare.

It's truly the most powerful constituency extant.

Put it this way:

Fixing the health-care "payment" crisis would be tantamount to a successful excision of lawyers from our congress.

Lawyer-politicians earn their pay by tying the system in knots only they can untie, and if they can't, they don't care, c'est la guerre'.

As to the rest, if there are no insurance companies, all of those problems disappear, or ebb to manageable levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Without any proofs, I'm going to say we'd be at least as far, perhaps farther.

---

I appreciate there is no way of knowing, but how do you come to this theory?

re- "at least as far". Where would the funding and incentive have come from to have been able to keep pace?


re- "perhaps farther". What about the funding from government and private insurance paying for treatments most couldn't dream of funding for themselves could possibly have hindered advancement?

You see my theory is that government and private insurance funding has made inovation profitable enough for innovation investment to be viable as far as technology is concerned and government funding has made research into disease, cause and treatment, possible. without that funding medical research would probably be profitable enough to produce treatments like viagra. Pharmaceutical companies tend to only invest their own money in competing drugs for ones already on the market. Nearly all new cures are from government funded research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Without any proofs, I'm going to say we'd be at least as far, perhaps farther.

---

I appreciate there is no way of knowing, but how do you come to this theory?

re- "at least as far". Where would the funding and incentive have come from to have been able to keep pace?


re- "perhaps farther". What about the funding from government and private insurance paying for treatments most couldn't dream of funding for themselves could possibly have hindered advancement?

You see my theory is that government and private insurance funding has made inovation profitable enough for innovation investment to be viable as far as technology is concerned and government funding has made research into disease, cause and treatment, possible. without that funding medical research would probably be profitable enough to produce treatments like viagra. Pharmaceutical companies tend to only invest their own money in competing drugs for ones already on the market. Nearly all new cures are from government funded research.

---

Call it a wild-ass guess, I don't care - it's my read, and I'm entitled to it.

If you want to worry me about it, take your own guess and I'll question that.

Btw - that last bit of yours?

Tell me more, why don't you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Btw - that last bit of yours?

Tell me more, why don't you.

---

NIH and CDC funding, similar benefactors around the world as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Btw - that last bit of yours?

Tell me more, why don't you.

---

NIH and CDC funding, similar benefactors around the world as well.

---

Ah, there's certainly more to that, isn't there.

A bit fussed for time, just now...

Of course it isn't so simple, I just didn't want to get into it, seems like to much effort

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Of course it isn't so simple, I just didn't want to get into it, seems like to much effort

---

I agree 1000%; to make an honest case for the G is an awfully elastic proposition.

I love making lengthy arguments, but only when I can do it with some conviction, and perhaps there's some passion in it. In this case, I both appreciate and hate our system for funding research. It is mostly publicly funded, but I have lost respect for that system. Disease and health research has been made possible because of it, but typically you need to sell your research with some novelty to get funded. The way around that is to think of some novel bullshit, get funded, and use the money to fund the more pragmatic studies in addition to meeting your grant requirements for the original proposal.

NIH, CDC, NSF (MRC in UK), all government funding agencies. The NIH is the biggest funding entity for medical research worldwide. There are many private corporate funding sources, but the rewards are smaller when they fund externally. These companies can put their own money into R&D, but they often try to get government funding (not only for the free money, but also for the status). They have a profit motive though, and most critical medical research doesn't revolve around profitable ventures. Case in point, pharmaceutical research is a factor when accounting for private funding (and the numbers are significant). It would take a hell of a lot of accounting and perspective to find out how much of it is useful. Even if that effort was undertaken, it's subject to major criticism, as everyone states their research is important (publicly). I do believe everyone could agree that working on a purely profit motive though would obviously be detrimental in advancing medical/scientific understanding. We would need all kinds of crises just to get anywhere useful.

So that's about as short as I could make it, didn't have enough time to make it shorter...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

I love making lengthy arguments, but only when I can do it with some conviction, and perhaps there's some passion in it. In this case, I both appreciate and hate our system for funding research. It is mostly publicly funded, but I have lost respect for that system. Disease and health research has been made possible because of it, but typically you need to sell your research with some novelty to get funded. The way around that is to think of some novel bullshit, get funded, and use the money to fund the more pragmatic studies in addition to meeting your grant requirements for the original proposal.

NIH, CDC, NSF (MRC in UK), all government funding agencies. The NIH is the biggest funding entity for medical research worldwide. There are many private corporate funding sources, but the rewards are smaller when they fund externally. These companies can put their own money into R&D, but they often try to get government funding (not only for the free money, but also for the status). They have a profit motive though, and most critical medical research doesn't revolve around profitable ventures. Case in point, pharmaceutical research is a factor when accounting for private funding (and the numbers are significant). It would take a hell of a lot of accounting and perspective to find out how much of it is useful. Even if that effort was undertaken, it's subject to major criticism, as everyone states their research is important (publicly). I do believe everyone could agree that working on a purely profit motive though would obviously be detrimental in advancing medical/scientific understanding. We would need all kinds of crises just to get anywhere useful.

So that's about as short as I could make it, didn't have enough time to make it shorter...

---

Again, as you say, it doesn't pay to get hip-deep in something difficult-to-finish.

For me, the research end of it goes awry when the war is over, and the benefits of a purpose-driven and highly-directed effort are lost/misplaced in the ensuing battle to maintain the sinecure.

Well - we're only human, aren't we, but the problem now is we can't summon a decent effort, even while we are fighting a couple of wars.

Is anyone really surprised that Donald Trump won't be your next president? Really?

Jon Stewart rails into Trump's failed attempt to host Palin as a New Yorker on Wednesday's Daily Show (01 June 2011). It's fucking hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Is anyone really surprised that Donald Trump won't be your next president? Really?

---

Snee, old pal, you would not believe the respect that frigging clown gets in some quarters.

Enough for several-times-several news cycles, as we've seen.

However, knowing Donald as we do, we could predict with certainty that, if it weren't for Celebrity Apprentice, and the camera time it represents, Donald might have stuck it out another week-or-two.

Frankly, it comes down to a fear of press conferences - I mean, too much bullshit is too much bullshit, and even the press knows that.

Trivia:

I can name-drop Trump.

My little sister has taken his deposition on several occasions, and recorded him on any number of others; last time he brought her a bottled water, which she refused, of course.

Apparently she hurt his feelings.

Remember the NYT article recounting his 'testimony' swearing up-and-down as to his billionaire status?

That was her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Is anyone really surprised that Donald Trump won't be your next president? Really?

---

Snee, old pal, you would not believe the respect that frigging clown gets in some quarters.

Enough for several-times-several news cycles, as we've seen.

However, knowing Donald as we do, we could predict with certainty that, if it weren't for Celebrity Apprentice, and the camera time it represents, Donald might have stuck it out another week-or-two.

Frankly, it comes down to a fear of press conferences - I mean, too much bullshit is too much bullshit, and even the press knows that.

Trivia:

I can name-drop Trump.

My little sister has taken his deposition on several occasions, and recorded him on any number of others; last time he brought her a bottled water, which she refused, of course.

Apparently she hurt his feelings.

Remember the NYT article recounting his 'testimony' swearing up-and-down as to his billionaire status?

That was her.

---

Trump was the only candidate who dealt with the core issue facing America: as a nation, we cannot continue to spend more than we take in.

That is true for government, but also for us on a national level. We cannot continue to spend more of our money on foreign made goods than we sell to other countries. Ultimately this trade deficit is what is causing our economic problems as well as our government deficits.

The only candidate who even dared to mention the idea of tariffs on Chinese made goods was Trump. He was the only one who admitted that they are not playing fair with us, and the only way to deal with their use of slave labor and unfair monetary practices is to make Chinese made goods more expensive to buy than American made goods, and thus we would start manufacturing things here again.

Ultimately, it is difficult to build a strong economy by delivering pizzas to one another, rather than manufacturing things and selling them to other people. Until we figure that out as a nation, we aren't going to turn this thing around.

So, there goes another 4 years down the drain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Trump was the only candidate who dealt with the core issue facing America: as a nation, we cannot continue to spend more than we take in.

That is true for government, but also for us on a national level. We cannot continue to spend more of our money on foreign made goods than we sell to other countries. Ultimately this trade deficit is what is causing our economic problems as well as our government deficits.

The only candidate who even dared to mention the idea of tariffs on Chinese made goods was Trump. He was the only one who admitted that they are not playing fair with us, and the only way to deal with their use of slave labor and unfair monetary practices is to make Chinese made goods more expensive to buy than American made goods, and thus we would start manufacturing things here again.

Ultimately, it is difficult to build a strong economy by delivering pizzas to one another, rather than manufacturing things and selling them to other people. Until we figure that out as a nation, we aren't going to turn this thing around.

So, there goes another 4 years down the drain.

---

Yeah surely, we need Trump to lecture us on trade deficits with China:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w..._made_in_china

How are tariffs on imported goods going to reduce manufacturing costs here? American companies can manufacture here and compete on price with imported goods. The problem is they can make more profit by outsourcing their labor to sweatshops in third world countries while selling the product here for the same price.

Government hasn't caused outsourcing, ignoring the fact that we allow tax breaks for American companies that do it, the private sector is wholly responsible for our loss of manufacturing. Of course the fact that we as a nation don't try to buy American made goods is the real fuel for the vehicle.

I know Clocker will probably make a comment about the quality of American made goods, but that is a result of a profit driven desire to race to the bottom. It appears that in America there is a desire to become a third world society where labor is as disposable as the goods they produce. Quality, it appears, has been deemed bad for the bottom line. Why make a light bulb that lasts for a decade? It doesn't cost much more to produce it, but you can make them to only last a year and force the consumer to replace it.

Maybe we should go back to bartering.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Maybe we should go back to bartering.:)

---

And soon you'd look out your window to see Trump bartering with your property.

He is already doing it. He is creating 'The best golf resort in the world' in the north of Scotland. He is also railroading anyone who stands in his way. He put a fence round one of the protesting properties and sent the owner a bill for the work.:angry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

He is already doing it. He is creating 'The best golf resort in the world' in the north of Scotland. He is also railroading anyone who stands in his way. He put a fence round one of the protesting properties and sent the owner a bill for the work.:angry:

---

Well, then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

I know Clocker will probably make a comment about the quality of American made goods, but that is a result of a profit driven desire to race to the bottom.

---

And here I am.
Oddly, I don't recall ever vilifying American manufacturing expertise, after all, we basically invented mass production and were certainly the first society to really enjoy the fruits of said production.
America had a standard of living in the 1960's that most countries have yet to reach today but that heyday is long gone.

I doubt-no, change that, I KNOW we could not put a man on the moon today...because there's no immediate profit to be made.
America morphed from making durable goods into making money and the further from the physical, the better.
Why make a widget when a credit default swap is so much easier and more profitable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Oddly, I don't recall ever vilifying American manufacturing expertise,

---

I haven't said you had.

You have, however, bemoaned the quality of American made products. It's not that they don't have the expertise to make quality products, it's that they decided to make sub standard products, for whatever reason.

I seem to recall a comment from you when I suggested that American biker patriotism saved Harley Davidson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

I doubt-no, change that, I KNOW we could not put a man on the moon today...because there's no immediate profit to be made.

---

While I find it odd that it would take us 10 years to produce a craft suitable for the task 4 decades after we did it with less computing power than found in a mid nineties automobile, I wholehearted believe that the private sector would never have achieved this, for the profit reason you pointed to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

America morphed from making durable goods into making money and the further from the physical, the better.
Why make a widget when a credit default swap is so much easier and more profitable?

---

Can't disagree much with that.