Homelessness grows as more live check-to-check

USA Today ^ | 8/12/03 | Stephanie Armour

[harpseal]

We don't. We buy DOMESTIC STEEL.

If you bought domestic steel at the market price then the tariffs did not hurt you. If you buying domestic steel at a price depressed by imports then you were getting an advantage from teh harm others inflicted on the US economy. If theprice went up becuase of tariffs then you are merely complaining about the market. I have no problem with your purchasing domestic steel and I have no problem with a free market in the USA for American products if the free market in the uSA has prices lower than the market would normally set becuase of imports then we need tariffs and one should not presume there is harm in them.

I agree it is good your company employs Americans. However your initial post implied some harm from teh steel tariffs I submit the only harm was they did not also cobver components made of steel and finished goods made of steel.

[Tokhtamish]

Gotta use what you have learned Ideal time to start your own biz Creativity is the son of hunger You'll never work for others again

I think you missed a few more cliches there.

[Gothmog]

While amusing, it's embarassing having you on this forum. You seem incapable of being accurate or polite. You said:

"China, the two characters that spell China, mean 'The Center of the World'."

Really, I've heard that before. But I believe that the actual history (vs. your histrionics) is more complex. The word "China" is simply an anglicized version of an old Chinese name of an ancient province. Check it out:

http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/imperial.html#first

"Much of what came to constitute China Proper was unified for the first time in 221 B.C. In that year the western frontier state of Qin, the most aggressive of the Warring States, subjugated the last of its rival states. (Qin in Wade-Giles romanization is Ch'in, from which the English China probably derived.)"

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/chinhist.html

"After nearly 900 years, the Chou Dynasty came to an end when the state of Ch'in, the strongest of the seven surviving states, unified China and established the first empire in 221 BC. The Ch'in empire did not last long, but it left two enduring legacies: the name China and the idea and structure of the empire. This heritage outlasted the Ch'in Dynasty itself by more than 2,000 years. (See Ch'in Dynasty)"

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHEMPIRE/CHEMPIRE.HTM

"In Chinese history, the Ch'in are the great, evil dynasty, but Western historians often stand in awe of the Ch'in. They were repressive, autocratic, and frequently cruel, but they were also brilliant political theorists and reformers who historically brought about one of the most energetic periods of Chinese government. Their story, however, is a very brief one. For from the time the Ch'in unified China in 221 BC, to the time of their fall fifteen years later in 206 BC, not even a generation had passed. For all that, so massive was their accomplishment that our name for China is derived from the Ch'in."

If you can post something credible supporting your claim, please feel free to do so.

But, I don't care if some third rate country thinks that it's ancient name might mean something about being the center of the world. I'm sorry you're so scared of them.

And if you actually read the history, you discover the people who created the name 'Qin,' or Ch'in,' didn't last very long. Why don't you think a similar situation of internal struggle will occur again? Are you part of the 'Defeat America First' crowd that panicked about the Japanese and Saudis 'buying' America in the 1980s?

And you don't think Japan had imperial ambitions in the 1930s? When was the rape of Nanking? What country was expanding and conquering SE Asia in the 1930s and 1940s? Do you remember Pearl Harbor?

At least your consistent. You're as accurate and credible as your pal Al Gore.

[Conservative til I die]

Recessions are corrections. People forget that. The dotcom bust was not a bust but a correction.

[Tokhtamish]

If you can't post something credible on this forum, it would help everyone if you avoided humiliation by keeping your mouth shut.

I studied Japanese for three years and can read and write Chinese characters (I am sure you are unaware that Japanese uses a subset of Chinese characters). The first character used to spell China means "Center". The Japanese kun reading is naka. The on (Chinese) reading is Chung or Chu.

The second character means nation. The Japanese kun reading is kuni. The on reading is koku or kuo.

The half educated like you translate it as Middle Kingdom when the true meaning is "Center of the World". These same characters are used in Chinese and Japanese.

Child, before the brief historical interlude of the round eyed sea peoples, China was a quarter of this planet's GNP. It has the brains, the bulk, the numbers, the resource base, the technological base to be the dominant superpower of this planet. Germany, the USSR, Japan, Britain... each of them lacked one of the above. China has it all.

[tdadams]

It has to do with the inescapable fact that someone in Bangalore will do your job for a tenth of your salary ...

Most people on these threads are your typical bitter Buchananite. You think you're entitled to the job of your choice no matter what the economic circumstances dictate.

[BMiles2112]

I think your argument has a perfect contradiction. A government subsidy on an export is the exact opposite of a tariff on an imported product. It's the gov't altering the "market" rate of a product to make the US product more favorable. Read the following.

If you buying domestic steel at a price depressed by imports then you were getting an advantage from teh harm others inflicted on the US economy.
Compare this with, If theprice went up becuase of tariffs then you are merely complaining about the market.
In summary, if the price is less than what US steel producers would like to charge, it is considered "depressed" by subsidized imports. On the other hand, if we slap a tariff on imported goods (which drives the price above what the US producers currently can afford to charge) , you would call the new price the "market at work", not "inflated".

You can't have it both ways. Either you consider the gov't interference part of the economy consistently or you don't at all. Unfortunately, you have to consider it. It swallows up a huge part of our economy, and it is what makes us uncompetitive in many markets. If a foreign nation subsidized an export, it hurts that industry here, but reduces the cost of the product for the consumers here. If we put a tariff on an import, it helps that industry here, but hurts the consumers here.

I understand the nat'l defense angle, and I agree with you on that, but in a strictly economic sense, tariffs can and do hurt our economy, though I do prefer that form of taxation over the ones currently in place, which do far more harm.

Thanks for the fight, I've got to go home now and pretend like I did some real work today.

[DugwayDuke]

I'm perfectly capable of understanding these differences.

If you'd been following my comments you would have noted that I'm against tariffs that raise the cost of doing business and consumer prices in the cause of saving jobs.

Even if you embargo all trade with China, those in favor of protective tariffs would still be clamoring for protective tariffs with India, Mexico, Chile and any other country with lower wage rates. Consequently, China is a red-herring and irrelevent.

[Gothmog]

You're so pathetic. Is that the best that you can do?

First, as far as posting "something credible on this forum," let's start with reviewing your record.

In post #87 you said:

"...things are worse than they have been since the Great Depression."

As I pointed out, you were simply parroting Al Gore's line. The New York Time's lib columnist Bob Herbert reports that at Al Gore's recent speech, Gore said:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.asp?section=Opinion&oid=30486

"Instead of creating jobs, for example, we are losing millions of jobs -- net losses for three years in a row,' said Gore. 'That hasn’t happened since the Great Depression.'"

Yeah, you're so credible. I bet Gore stole that from you because you're so bright.

Now you tell me I should listen to you because you say you know Japanese? Ooooh, I'm so impressed. Just for fun, try to regain some shred of credibility and post a source that backs up your assertion. Otherwise you're just blathering on.

Note: I believe the characters might actually be interpreted centuries later to mean 'center nation,' but you're missing the point. You say:

"The half educated like you translate it as Middle Kingdom..."

I don't care what the current Chinese want frightened children like you to believe it means. Since you're obviously so slow, I'll try to make it simple:

It might be translated to mean "Middle Kingdom," it might mean "Center Nation," it might mean "Center of the World." Actually reading the history suggests that it might have meant "middle province," "middle of the field," middle of nowhere," "center of the glade," "center of local trade," "center firepit," etc. All that studying, but no comprehension.

A bunch of primitive people named their region "Qin," the British mispronounced it as "China," and now you're telling me this has some mystical significance?

No, let me get this right. You're actually trying to argue that because hundreds of years ago "...China was a quarter of this planet's GNP" that I should fear their economic power today. Guess what? I'm not exactly afraid of the Egyptians, the Greeks or the French taking over the world because centuries ago they had dominant cultures.

You say China "has the brains..." Yeah, then why are there so many Chinese Americans in the US? Why do they need to steal our military and economic ideas? Because they're so smart?

You're like Malthus -- you see a bunch of people different than you and you get all scared and use that fear and insecurity to make all sorts of laughable predictions.

China has a lot of things, but most importantly China has problems. Huge ones. You blithely boast that China has the "...bulk, the numbers, the resource base, the technological base to be the dominant superpower of this planet." But you fail to consider the problems China is having, and is going to continue to have, as long as it practices their brand of oligarchich (sp?) socialism.

I know you like to quote Gore, so you probably believe the lib dem line about the 'gap between the rich and the poor.' China has it worse.

Try using the history links I have kindly provided you with to educate yourself. At one time, the Qin had some prolonged periods of peace, but they have also had some incredibly violent periods of revolution.

Now, I know you and Gore lack any faith in the US and want us to adopt the economic policies of third rate tyrants and oligarchs, but I am afraid I'll have to disagree.

There is a dominant superpower on the planet, and its the US. You might want to whine that:

"When you examine what happens when three million jobs leave this country, a rational person would obviously see that it means a lot of people who had homes three years ago don't today. Or did you think that 3 million jobs could vanish without manifesting themselves in hard socioeconomic consequences (homelessness, crime, alcoholism, drug abuse)?"

But that's all it is, whining.

Note: Please cut the condescending, paternalistic attitude. Adults find that attitude annoying.











In response to Tdadams in post #292 you said:

"You talk like a foolish, boastful child."

[Snip]

"Adult maturity comes when you realize that bad things happen in life without your having 'done something to deserve it'.

[Gothmog]

Please ignore that last bit at the end of post #309. I was thinking about poking fun at your childish attitude, thought better of it, but forgot to delete it.

[pfflier]

Rush Limbaugh called it earlier this year. In 8 years of Clintoon bliss we had no homeless but get a Republican in the White House and the homeless re-appear. W must be personally evicting them.

[pfflier]

Actually the statistics are true, last night in Denver bush only had 350 supporters show up for his benefit, only 1 million raised and there were over 4000 protesters outside with signs that read, "Where is my job?"

What statistical inference can be drawn from these figures?

That homeless outnumber Bush supporters 4000/350 or roughly 10:1? Wouldn't his poll numbers reflect that?

That Bush supporters donate $1 million more than jobless? That would approach a mathematical impossibility, a divide by zero unless you used imaginary numbers (like the press and Demoncrats do).

That people with jobs donate $1 million at a rate of $1 million to 350? Obviously with this interpretation, that last tax cut made the rich want to throw money at the president while the poor were thrown onto the street.

BTW were all 4000 protester actually unemployed or were they there for your benefit? That could skew the statistics.

On the other hand the 350 Bush supporters were statistically 100% in support of the president.

[samuel_adams_us]

Well you can say the other people were not for bush, so what's the difference?

[Centurion2000]

Tell us how the President is supposed to turn the whole economy around

Introduce legislation that will treat multi-nationals as foreign companies; executive suspension of the H1B and L1 programs until they are amended by Congress; divert the 3rd ID and active duty forces to the borders with orders to shoot to kill. Move the INS and border patrol back to start picking up illegal aliens working. Instruct the Department of Justice to IMMEDIATELY start filing felony warrants against employers caught using illegal alien labor. Post notices that all illegal aliens caught will be flown to Leavenworth and Gitmo for processing out-country. All families caught will be air dropped into countries of origin using parachutes.

Shall I go on ?

[Tokhtamish]

Invariably on economic threads we have strutting fools of libertarians envisioning themselves heroic Ayn Rand ubermensch, their iron jaws set defiantly into the wind, their capes fluttering behind them, sneering at anyone who is obviously so weak and degenerate and incompetent to be jobless in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. In short, spoiled, obnoxious children.

Business thinks only short term. Bean counters only think to their bonuses. Grownups who have actually lived and worked in the corporate world know that it is absolutely nothing at all like John Galt or Dagny Taggart so romanticizing the "free market" the way libertarians do is incredibly naive. The reality is vastly closer to "Dilbert" than "Atlas Shrugged".

It is society's job to think in the long term. That means making sure the economy serves society's goals, not subordinating society to shareholder equity. Buchananites understood this. They were the ones crying out in the wilderness when the Dow was 13,000 and the want ads were like phone books. They knew that "free trade" would wipe out whole sectors of the American economy, leaving only devastation in its wake. As things turn out, they were obviously right.

[not-an-ostrich]

Anyone who is homeless because of credit card debt is a victim of "substance abuse and bad decisions". Sorry, but running up credit card debt you can't afford and then filing bankruptcy is stealing.

[Tokhtamish]

That's all right.

In 1900 Joseph Chamberlain was trying to make complacent British elites understand that they needed to shift from "free trade" to defend their industrial base. But of course those with your mentality in the British elite refused to see. Well, Britain was mortally wounded when its industrial base could not meet the demands of the First World War. All the accumulated wealth of the Victorian age went to buy American arms. So you needn't defend or explain yourself to me. I understand the mentality of complacent, late imperial rot.

Maybe when you are older and have learnt something about history you will understand this.

[Conservative til I die]

Yes, please do go on. While I don't disagree with tightening up immigration, both legal and illegal, it seems to be what your fixating on, and I don't think that is the sole thing ailing the economy.

[Centurion2000]

Yes, please do go on. While I don't disagree with tightening up immigration, both legal and illegal, it seems to be what your fixating on, and I don't think that is the sole thing ailing the economy.

If there are 10 million illegal aliens (estimated) and hundreds of thousands of H1B visa holders in the US, then eliminating those will push employment back up to full capacity.

The other idea would be to tear a page from Clancy and use that "mirror trade" law. Essentially all countries would have their trade laws reflected back on them for all imports.

Tearing the guts out of OPIC is another point to make, and maybe pushing China around on human rights is another point. Getting the US out of the IMF and World Bank is an additional step towards turning the economy up.

It's long past time for the US to really start playing hardball.

[Centurion2000]

another point : School vouchers will increase quality teacher demand in private schools.