Arthur Sowers?

Straydog wrote:
> (post and email)
>
> Yeah, he's still around. Send me a private email (my email adddress is
> live and valid) or post your question (I use an alias these days). I took
> down my website because of appathy, lack of interest, people don't
> listent if the message isn't what they want to hear, etc. But, I'll make
> a zip file and send it to you if you want. It might be cached on google,
> I don't know.
>
> If you don't have an emergency situation, or need help or advice (nobody
> listens anyway, but then they [a different 'they'] said the Titanic was
> unsinkable, too), stick around and join the src regulars, we're still here
> (amidst all the spam), and there are several guys who know what is going
> on.

And what _is_ going on that hasn't been going on for decades? I'll
stick around for a decade, just to see if all of your dire predictions
come true. If they do, I expect I'll be we won't be able to access the
Internet, and I'll be holed up at my mom's property in the mountains,
fending off hordes of starving flatlanders from overruning the garden
and stealing all of the food, and protecting the Chihuahas from
becoming hors d'oveures.
 >> Stay informed about: Arthur Sowers? 

BMJ wrote:

> Considering the high prices for both oil and gold, I suspect we're close
> to a major correction in the market. The last time we were in a similar
> situation was in the late '70s/early '80s, and some of us remember very
> well what happened after that.

It is impossible to tell whether the high rices for gold and oil are
the reasons causing the economical crisis, or just a last straw, which
broke the back of a camel. However, I believe that a crisis is coming,
just because they are always coming.

I believe that after the economical crisis occurs, the rich 10% of
society will be able to cling to their lavish lifestyles. It is the
poorest 30% which will bear the brunt of the crisis to the fullest.
Everyone will move one levell down in their socioeconomic staircase
(E.g. upper middle class will become middle middle class, the lower
middle class will become the upper lower class etc).

\/
 >> Stay informed about: Arthur Sowers? 

On Tue, 2 May 2006, BroTher zAchary wrote:

>
> Straydog wrote:
>> (post and email)
>>
>> Yeah, he's still around. Send me a private email (my email adddress is
>> live and valid) or post your question (I use an alias these days). I took
>> down my website because of appathy, lack of interest, people don't
>> listent if the message isn't what they want to hear, etc. But, I'll make
>> a zip file and send it to you if you want. It might be cached on google,
>> I don't know.
>>
>> If you don't have an emergency situation, or need help or advice (nobody
>> listens anyway, but then they [a different 'they'] said the Titanic was
>> unsinkable, too), stick around and join the src regulars, we're still here
>> (amidst all the spam), and there are several guys who know what is going
>> on.
>
> And what _is_ going on that hasn't been going on for decades?

Substantial job offshoring only began in the last 5-10 years.
Substantial "relocation" of manufacturing in the
electronics/camera industry began in the '60s-'70s
Substantial decline in all US-based manufacturing centers began in the
last 5-10 years.
Substantial offshoring of office work began only in the last 5 years.
Substantial deliberate import of foreign workers began only in the last
5-10 years and includes areas such as teachers and nurses (mainly
from the Philipines), resort beach waitstaff (half of all of them
in our neighborhood are from Russia, east Europe, etc.), 95% of
our chicken processing plant jobs are filled by Guatemalans.

I'll
> stick around for a decade, just to see if all of your dire predictions
> come true.

I may be dead by then. But, there are lots of studies showing
deterioration at the low end of the socio economic scale. Not much per
year, but multiply that rate by 10-20 years and the problem is going to be
very noticeable down the road.

If they do, I expect I'll be we won't be able to access the
> Internet,

There is substantial information that your access to the net is already
controled (eg. google and AOL "filter" email and www searches, China
censors)

> and I'll be holed up at my mom's property in the mountains,
> fending off hordes of starving flatlanders from overruning the garden
> and stealing all of the food, and protecting the Chihuahas from
> becoming hors d'oveures.

I'll leave that one to you, but from my recent readings of history, life
in big cities, in past history, where declines took place, was neither
happy nor safe.

P.S. I just finished vol. 5 (The Renaisance) of Durrant. Five more to go,
just started vol. 6 (The Reformation).

I wish you the best.
 >> Stay informed about: Arthur Sowers? 

BroTher zAchary wrote:

<snip>

> And what _is_ going on that hasn't been going on for decades? I'll
> stick around for a decade, just to see if all of your dire predictions
> come true. If they do, I expect I'll be we won't be able to access the
> Internet, and I'll be holed up at my mom's property in the mountains,
> fending off hordes of starving flatlanders from overruning the garden
> and stealing all of the food, and protecting the Chihuahas from
> becoming hors d'oveures.
>

Considering the high prices for both oil and gold, I suspect we're close
to a major correction in the market. The last time we were in a similar
situation was in the late '70s/early '80s, and some of us remember very
well what happened after that.
 >> Stay informed about: Arthur Sowers? 

On Tue, 2 May 2006, BMJ wrote:

> BroTher zAchary wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> And what _is_ going on that hasn't been going on for decades? I'll
>> stick around for a decade, just to see if all of your dire predictions
>> come true. If they do, I expect I'll be we won't be able to access the
>> Internet, and I'll be holed up at my mom's property in the mountains,
>> fending off hordes of starving flatlanders from overruning the garden
>> and stealing all of the food, and protecting the Chihuahas from
>> becoming hors d'oveures.
>>
>
> Considering the high prices for both oil and gold, I suspect we're close to a
> major correction in the market. The last time we were in a similar situation
> was in the late '70s/early '80s, and some of us remember very well what
> happened after that.
>

The other thing that is different now and going back just a few decades is
our greatly expanding trade deficit--generally agreed by most economists
(not that I have a lot of faith in their judgements)--to be one of several
non-equilibrium serious problems. Oil and gold? May be more a hostage of
herd mentality, but it is also a fact that Indians and Chinese are buying
cars like they never did before, too. They is hungry beasts; nobody owns a
car that doesn't want to go barrelling down the highway on a Sunday
afternoon for a country ride (or if you are a SUV nutcase, then go
bouncing all over the non-road landscape just for the hell of it, busting
shock absorbers and testing all the spot-weld joints, as well as
guzzling gasoline for the hell of it).
 >> Stay informed about: Arthur Sowers? 

S. 'Trash' Ny Qui wrote:
> BMJ wrote:
>
>
>>Considering the high prices for both oil and gold, I suspect we're close
>>to a major correction in the market. The last time we were in a similar
>>situation was in the late '70s/early '80s, and some of us remember very
>>well what happened after that.
>
>
> It is impossible to tell whether the high rices for gold and oil are
> the reasons causing the economical crisis, or just a last straw, which
> broke the back of a camel. However, I believe that a crisis is coming,
> just because they are always coming.

The high prices are simply a symptom of the "irrational exuberance" (to
quote a former Fed chairman) that the market is currently possessed by.
I suspected something wasn't quite right at least two years ago as
it's 1979 all over again.

>
> I believe that after the economical crisis occurs, the rich 10% of
> society will be able to cling to their lavish lifestyles. It is the
> poorest 30% which will bear the brunt of the crisis to the fullest.

Actually, it'll be those people with the highest debt who'll be hurt the
most. One reason the aftermath crash of '29 was so severe was the high
proportion of investors who bought stock on margin. Two words that
someone in that position never wants to hear is "margin call". As the
price of the stock goes down, the more money one has to pay one's broker.

> Everyone will move one levell down in their socioeconomic staircase
> (E.g. upper middle class will become middle middle class, the lower
> middle class will become the upper lower class etc).
>
> \/
>
 >> Stay informed about: Arthur Sowers? 

Straydog wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 May 2006, BMJ wrote:
>
>> BroTher zAchary wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> And what _is_ going on that hasn't been going on for decades? I'll
>>> stick around for a decade, just to see if all of your dire predictions
>>> come true. If they do, I expect I'll be we won't be able to access the
>>> Internet, and I'll be holed up at my mom's property in the mountains,
>>> fending off hordes of starving flatlanders from overruning the garden
>>> and stealing all of the food, and protecting the Chihuahas from
>>> becoming hors d'oveures.
>>>
>>
>> Considering the high prices for both oil and gold, I suspect we're
>> close to a major correction in the market. The last time we were in a
>> similar situation was in the late '70s/early '80s, and some of us
>> remember very well what happened after that.
>>
>
> The other thing that is different now and going back just a few decades
> is our greatly expanding trade deficit--generally agreed by most
> economists (not that I have a lot of faith in their judgements)--to be
> one of several non-equilibrium serious problems.

But your country's had a trade deficit for the last thirty years.

Oil and gold? May be
> more a hostage of herd mentality, but it is also a fact that Indians and
> Chinese are buying cars like they never did before, too.

True, but that was happening in several Third World countries in the
late '70s, particularly Mexico, which had started exporting oil.

Gold is seen by many as a hedge against what may happen next. The
reasons behind the high prices then and now are similar: political, mainly.

They is hungry
> beasts; nobody owns a car that doesn't want to go barrelling down the
> highway on a Sunday afternoon for a country ride (or if you are a SUV
> nutcase, then go bouncing all over the non-road landscape just for the
> hell of it, busting shock absorbers and testing all the spot-weld
> joints, as well as guzzling gasoline for the hell of it).

I hardly drive mine, but, then, I don't have to.
 >> Stay informed about: Arthur Sowers? 

On Wed, 3 May 2006, BMJ wrote:

> Straydog wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 2 May 2006, BMJ wrote:
>>
>>> BroTher zAchary wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> And what _is_ going on that hasn't been going on for decades? I'll
>>>> stick around for a decade, just to see if all of your dire predictions
>>>> come true. If they do, I expect I'll be we won't be able to access the
>>>> Internet, and I'll be holed up at my mom's property in the mountains,
>>>> fending off hordes of starving flatlanders from overruning the garden
>>>> and stealing all of the food, and protecting the Chihuahas from
>>>> becoming hors d'oveures.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Considering the high prices for both oil and gold, I suspect we're close
>>> to a major correction in the market. The last time we were in a similar
>>> situation was in the late '70s/early '80s, and some of us remember very
>>> well what happened after that.
>>>
>>
>> The other thing that is different now and going back just a few decades is
>> our greatly expanding trade deficit--generally agreed by most economists
>> (not that I have a lot of faith in their judgements)--to be one of several
>> non-equilibrium serious problems.
>
> But your country's had a trade deficit for the last thirty years.

Just as I said, "...a few decades...."

> Oil and gold? May be
>> more a hostage of herd mentality, but it is also a fact that Indians and
>> Chinese are buying cars like they never did before, too.
>
> True, but that was happening in several Third World countries in the late
> '70s, particularly Mexico, which had started exporting oil.

China and India (and particularly China) are making cars like they never
did before. They are hungry for gas.

> Gold is seen by many as a hedge against what may happen next. The reasons
> behind the high prices then and now are similar: political, mainly.
>
> They is hungry
>> beasts; nobody owns a car that doesn't want to go barrelling down the
>> highway on a Sunday afternoon for a country ride (or if you are a SUV
>> nutcase, then go bouncing all over the non-road landscape just for the hell
>> of it, busting shock absorbers and testing all the spot-weld joints, as
>> well as guzzling gasoline for the hell of it).
>
> I hardly drive mine, but, then, I don't have to.

Everyone else drives theirs like mad, and they _want_ to.
 >> Stay informed about: Arthur Sowers? 

BMJ wrote:
> Straydog wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> The other thing that is different now and going back just a few
> >>> decades is our greatly expanding trade deficit--generally agreed by
> >>> most economists (not that I have a lot of faith in their
> >>> judgements)--to be one of several non-equilibrium serious problems.
> >>
> >>
> >> But your country's had a trade deficit for the last thirty years.
> >
Not the kind they have now.

> >
> > Just as I said, "...a few decades...."
>
> A matter of semantics.
>
> >
> >> Oil and gold? May be
> >>
> >>> more a hostage of herd mentality, but it is also a fact that Indians
> >>> and Chinese are buying cars like they never did before, too.
> >>
> >>
> >> True, but that was happening in several Third World countries in the
> >> late '70s, particularly Mexico, which had started exporting oil.
> >
> >
> > China and India (and particularly China) are making cars like they never
> > did before. They are hungry for gas.
>
> Only those who are among the nouveau riche. The vast majority can't
> afford automobiles, let alone the fuel.
>

No -many middle class people can afford cars. The price range is
different in India though. One can get a car for $5000 onwards and
$10000 gets a decent multi-purpose one. A lot of people use bikes -but
they are losing popularity except with teenages coz it spols the
clothes and are accident-prone.

[snip]
regards
-kamal
 >> Stay informed about: Arthur Sowers? 

Straydog wrote:

<snip>

>>> The other thing that is different now and going back just a few
>>> decades is our greatly expanding trade deficit--generally agreed by
>>> most economists (not that I have a lot of faith in their
>>> judgements)--to be one of several non-equilibrium serious problems.
>>
>>
>> But your country's had a trade deficit for the last thirty years.
>
>
> Just as I said, "...a few decades...."

A matter of semantics.

>
>> Oil and gold? May be
>>
>>> more a hostage of herd mentality, but it is also a fact that Indians
>>> and Chinese are buying cars like they never did before, too.
>>
>>
>> True, but that was happening in several Third World countries in the
>> late '70s, particularly Mexico, which had started exporting oil.
>
>
> China and India (and particularly China) are making cars like they never
> did before. They are hungry for gas.

Only those who are among the nouveau riche. The vast majority can't
afford automobiles, let alone the fuel.

<snip>

>>> beasts; nobody owns a car that doesn't want to go barrelling down the
>>> highway on a Sunday afternoon for a country ride (or if you are a SUV
>>> nutcase, then go bouncing all over the non-road landscape just for
>>> the hell of it, busting shock absorbers and testing all the spot-weld
>>> joints, as well as guzzling gasoline for the hell of it).
>>
>>
>> I hardly drive mine, but, then, I don't have to.
>
>
> Everyone else drives theirs like mad, and they _want_ to.
>

For most people, it's a matter of choice. They do so because they can,
not because like, say, people in rural areas, it's a necessity. I use
my bike because it's cheaper, it's convenient, it benefits me
physically, and it's socially responsible.
 >> Stay informed about: Arthur Sowers? 

On Wed, 3 May 2006, Kamal R. Prasad wrote:

>
> BMJ wrote:
>> Straydog wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> The other thing that is different now and going back just a few
>>>>> decades is our greatly expanding trade deficit--generally agreed by
>>>>> most economists (not that I have a lot of faith in their
>>>>> judgements)--to be one of several non-equilibrium serious problems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But your country's had a trade deficit for the last thirty years.
>>>
> Not the kind they have now.

We're supporting the industries of the world and non of them want to
change the system.

>>>> late '70s, particularly Mexico, which had started exporting oil.
>>>
>>>
>>> China and India (and particularly China) are making cars like they never
>>> did before. They are hungry for gas.
>>
>> Only those who are among the nouveau riche. The vast majority can't
>> afford automobiles, let alone the fuel.
>>
>
> No -many middle class people can afford cars.

And, gasoline consumption in India and China is growing faster than in the
USA. Soon India will be the pigs.

The price range is
> different in India though. One can get a car for $5000 onwards and
> $10000 gets a decent multi-purpose one.

From what I hear, only in recent years has the quality improved.

A lot of people use bikes -but
> they are losing popularity except with teenages coz it spols the
> clothes

Aw, they are lazy spoiled Indians.

> and are accident-prone.

You know, bike use in the USA is up?

> [snip]
> regards
> -kamal
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Arthur Sowers? 

Straydog wrote:
> On Wed, 3 May 2006, Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
>
> >
> > BMJ wrote:
> >> Straydog wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>>>> The other thing that is different now and going back just a few
> >>>>> decades is our greatly expanding trade deficit--generally agreed by
> >>>>> most economists (not that I have a lot of faith in their
> >>>>> judgements)--to be one of several non-equilibrium serious problems.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But your country's had a trade deficit for the last thirty years.
> >>>
> > Not the kind they have now.
>
> We're supporting the industries of the world and non of them want to
> change the system.
>

Some do, some don't. It is not a universal thing in terms of how much
other countries are dependent on the US economy or how (in)dependent
they would like to be. IMO it is not a good idea for 1.2 billion people
to depend on the spending habits of 300 million deeply indebted people.

> >>>> late '70s, particularly Mexico, which had started exporting oil.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> China and India (and particularly China) are making cars like they never
> >>> did before. They are hungry for gas.
> >>
> >> Only those who are among the nouveau riche. The vast majority can't
> >> afford automobiles, let alone the fuel.
> >>
> >
> > No -many middle class people can afford cars.
>
> And, gasoline consumption in India and China is growing faster than in the

It is growing faster, but the US is still the largest consumer of
gasoline by a huge margin.

> USA. Soon India will be the pigs.
>
Have you taken into account the differences in population/productivity?

> The price range is
> > different in India though. One can get a car for $5000 onwards and
> > $10000 gets a decent multi-purpose one.
>
> From what I hear, only in recent years has the quality improved.
>

It can improve drastically if the country acquires more purchasing
power. Instead of buying a low end Hyundai, people will be buying high
end Toyotas coz their disposable income will have greater purchasing
power. A side effect is that more workers in India will be catering to
the Indian consumer than elsewhere. That should be good news to people
who label Indians as parasites.

regards
-kamal
 >> Stay informed about: Arthur Sowers? 

On Wed, 3 May 2006, Kamal R. Prasad wrote:

>
> Straydog wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 May 2006, Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> BMJ wrote:
>>>> Straydog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> The other thing that is different now and going back just a few
>>>>>>> decades is our greatly expanding trade deficit--generally agreed by
>>>>>>> most economists (not that I have a lot of faith in their
>>>>>>> judgements)--to be one of several non-equilibrium serious problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But your country's had a trade deficit for the last thirty years.
>>>>>
>>> Not the kind they have now.
>>
>> We're supporting the industries of the world and non of them want to
>> change the system.
>>
>
> Some do, some don't.

The only ones that do want to change the system are the ones that want to
change the amount of US$ they get so that they get more.

> It is not a universal thing in terms of how much
> other countries are dependent on the US economy or how (in)dependent
> they would like to be. IMO it is not a good idea for 1.2 billion people
> to depend on the spending habits of 300 million deeply indebted people.

And, everything in the media says that greater numbers of those 1.2
billion are becoming like first world people in terms of habits, spending,
ang going into debt. All that I read is that more Indians are going deeper
into debt, right now, to buy electronics and cars, and you should be
talking about this, too, if you are going to criticise (only) the USA for
its debt. It is another one of your inconsistencies where you only look at
the USA and not Japan or Europe, and of course, to you there is nothing
bad going on in India.

>>>>>> late '70s, particularly Mexico, which had started exporting oil.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> China and India (and particularly China) are making cars like they never
>>>>> did before. They are hungry for gas.
>>>>
>>>> Only those who are among the nouveau riche. The vast majority can't
>>>> afford automobiles, let alone the fuel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No -many middle class people can afford cars.
>>
>> And, gasoline consumption in India and China is growing faster than in the
>
> It is growing faster, but the US is still the largest consumer of
> gasoline by a huge margin.

And, for how long will that be? And, so what? Indians are the largest
breeders of people. You just breed your people into poverty.

>> USA. Soon India will be the pigs.
>>
> Have you taken into account the differences in population/productivity?

Yes, half of offshoring to India fails. Its in material I've cited. Other
material shows our corporations don't even care if the quality of the work
goes down as long as the price goes down.

And, so what if you have 1.2 bil people? Does the big number mean you have
some special rights to anything? You sure don't give anyone in the USA any
priviledge to rights. Why should your 1.2 bil people have any rights if
you don't allow any rights to anyone else?

>> The price range is
>>> different in India though. One can get a car for $5000 onwards and
>>> $10000 gets a decent multi-purpose one.
>>
>> From what I hear, only in recent years has the quality improved.
>>
>
> It can improve drastically if the country acquires more purchasing
> power.

You can sure invent a silly answer. You have to make a good car and then
people will buy it. Decades ago Yugoslavia tried to sell a car they called
the Yugo. The quality was so bad it failed. The problem was how the
factory was organized (under communism). You may want some more US FDI
into India to help India, but not by acquiring more purchasing power. If
you get more PP, then you can buy OUR cars.

Instead of buying a low end Hyundai, people will be buying high
> end Toyotas coz their disposable income will have greater purchasing
> power.

And, this sentence is unrelated to your one above where the subject is
quality of Indian cars.

A side effect is that more workers in India will be catering to
> the Indian consumer than elsewhere.

You don't need more PP because you don't need PP (through exchange rates)
to buy products made in your own country especially if your buyer markets
and seller markets adjust according to supply and demand. You, of all
people, should know better.

That should be good news to people
> who label Indians as parasites.

The only people who are parasites are the CEOs. But the CEOs also employ
people who help with theft.

> regards
> -kamal
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Arthur Sowers?