Jump to content

Manshoon11

Registered User
  • Posts

    217
  • Joined

Everything posted by Manshoon11

  1. Somehow I found a pair (Puma's) at Men's warehouse of all places.
  2. They have real leadership in place now.
  3. This is what I ask every one who argues a point along those lines. Do you or do you not want to go back to the economy of the past when things were supposedly more fair and wages were supposedly more in line with productivity? We must all understand that we have insufficient information to answer all of these questions. And it becomes abundantly clear when we talk about the policy solutions to cure this supposed problem. So we hand over the reigns to politicians? Well sure why not, they are advised by "the economists". Few ever ask which economists. Of which persuasion? Every one learn this and learn this quick. You don't know anything about economics. There are forces at work that no one understands. This is not an attack on any one. It is a humbling lesson though. If you don't believe me, then just put yourself in the shoes of someone living in centuries past. Consider all of the technological improvements coming on board. Consider that most of the population was involved in some type of agricultural work. In a very real sense, all of their livelihoods was threatened. But the forces at work defied the prognostications. The increased productivity improved our lives. Demand didn't collapse. Our future has something in store for us which no one can fathom. I say we should embrace it. In saying that one must consider that their particular employment may become obsolete. Prepare now.
  4. Same old union tripe...... A voice from from decades past sheds some light. Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt The Lesson Applied The Fetish of Full Employment THE ECONOMIC GOAL of any nation, as of any individual, is to get the greatest results with the least effort. The whole economic progress of mankind has consisted in getting more production with the same labor. It is for this reason that men began putting burdens on the backs of mules instead of on their own; that they went on to invent the wheel and the wagon, the railroad and the motor truck. It is for this reason that men used their ingenuity to develop a hundred thousand labor-saving inventions. All this is so elementary that one would blush to state it if it were not being constantly forgotten by those who coin and circulate the new slogans. Translated into national terms, this first principle means that our real objective is to maximize production. In doing this, full employment—that is, the absence of involuntary idleness—becomes a necessary byproduct. But production is the end, employment merely the means. We cannot continuously have the fullest production without full employment. But we can very easily have full employment without full production. Primitive tribes are naked, and wretchedly fed and housed, but they do not suffer from unemployment. China and India are incomparably poorer than ourselves, but the main trouble from which they suffer is primitive production methods (which are both a cause and a consequence of a shortage of capital) and not unemployment. Nothing is easier to achieve than full employment, once it is divorced from the goal of full production and taken as an end in itself. Hitler provided full employment with a huge armament program. World War II provided full employment for every nation involved. The slave labor in Germany had full employment. Prisons and chain gangs have full employment. Coercion can always provide full employment. Yet our legislators do not present Full Production bills in Congress but Full Employment bills. Even committees of businessmen recommend “a President’s Commission on Full Employment,” not on Full Production, or even on Full Employment and Full Production. Everywhere the means is erected into the end, and the end itself is forgotten. Wages and employment are discussed as if they had no relation to productivity and output. On the assumption that there is only a fixed amount of work to be done, the conclusion is drawn that a thirty-hour week will provide more jobs and will therefore be preferable to a forty-hour week. A hundred make-work practices of labor unions are confusedly tolerated. When a Petrillo threatens to put a radio station out of business unless it employs twice as many musicians as it needs, he is supported by part of the public because he is after all merely trying to create jobs. When we had our WPA, it was considered a mark of genius for the administrators to think of projects that employed the largest number of men in relation to the value of the work performed—in other words, in which labor was least efficient. It would be far better, if that were the choice—which it isn’t—to have maximum production with part of the population supported in idleness by undisguised relief than to provide “full employment” by so many forms of disguised make-work that production is disorganized. The progress of civilization has meant the reduction of employment, not its increase. It is because we have become increasingly wealthy as a nation that we have been able virtually to eliminate child labor, to remove the necessity of work for many of the aged and to make it unnecessary for millions of women to take jobs. A much smaller proportion of the American population needs to work than that, say, of China or of Russia. The real question is not how many millions of jobs there will be in America ten years from now, but how much shall we produce, and what, in consequence, will be our standard of living? The problem of distribution on which all the stress is being put today, is after all more easily solved the more there is to distribute. We can clarify our thinking if we put our chief emphasis where it belongs—on policies that will maximize production. Think about it. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iJVSVSOhzC0/T-9KXCaVurI/AAAAAAAAAWc/oZ-KGI7skoo/s1600/US+employment+by+sector+1840-2010.png
  5. I'll take a baker's dozen
  6. I sense a disturbance in the force. He is becoming too powerful.
  7. I ordered mine from car builders solutions. California requires some sort of backup lighting.
  8. mean machine!
  9. I do.
  10. Original thought is the solution. I am anti-religion because of the surrendering to a higher power aspect and that I need to "just have faith" that all of the writings are correct. That is nonsense. The problem is a complete lack of education. Everything these people know is fed to them. They are acting logically according to their upbringing. It is part of logic 101.... The way in which one arrives to their conclusion is much more important than the conclusion one holds. There are those that hold economic beliefs completely opposite to mine, but they reached their conclusions in a logical fashion. Of course they don't. Most of the people who do well in life look at all of their hard work, their rewards, and simply believe that that is the way forward, not free money. How is this illogical? How is this cruel to the poor? It is a logically derived conclusion. Welfare has grown 16x (inflation adjusted) since the war on poverty. Can you blame me or others for questioning why we should do more of the same despite no fall in poverty? And there are really no such things as forms of socialism. It is more of how little or how much of it exists. For instance, the Great Recession was blamed on capitalism, yet total government spending/GDP is now at approximately 35%. That means 35% of all economic activity is directed by our federal, state and local governments. Just something to consider.
  11. this one was always my favorite......... but it is all about the driving. wow
  12. Anyone modify this? How do you do it? Did you? how much? Accelerated bearing wear? I've done alignments, but if there wasn't a factory adjustment, it was left alone. I know there are ways to add negative camber in a live axle, but don't know enough to talk about it. That's where you come in. Now, how long until X.C.G. chimes in with pictures, parts lists, diagrams, and maps with detailed directions to the location of said parts? :rofl:
  13. now that's funny right there
  14. I know this isn't the for sale section but............. :drool:
  15. Nice
  16. This got me thinking.... before seeing this i thought Cd was The number. i.e. our cars are worse than Hummer h2's. soooo the verdict is in.... since I tend to be paranoid and look for imaginary problems with my car. The # I should care about is CdA. and it is probably around .8 or .9m(^2) CdA we get a sort of mention here http://people.bath.ac.uk/ob225/design-aero.htm and that H2 is considerably draggier at 2.46m(^2) this page has frontal area at 1.26m^2 for a seven s3 http://carspector.com/car/lotus/039397/ thanks X.C.G.
  17. RA1's last much longer
  18. alright alright, ill stop giving X.C.G. so much crap for running the widest tires on the planet for his red rocket.
  19. pretty
  20. http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1txmu90sw1qd9b3co1_500.gif
  21. k http://becausemollysaidso.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/steve_buscemi_billy_madison.png
  22. Shhhh, I'm learning how to be a salesman.... "if the prisoner die before the cut numbers the execution will still continue till hit the number the equipment of the execution is sharp knife and the tougne looking thing u see in the picture."
×
×
  • Create New...