Discussion:
France voted Best Place to Live in the World
(too old to reply)
Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello Pommes Frites!
2010-02-11 20:50:56 UTC
Permalink
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/index.html

Why France is best place to live in world

By Daniela Deane for CNN
February 11, 2010

London, England (CNN) -- Bindi Dupouy, an Australian living in Paris, and
her French husband, just had their first child, a son born in the country.

Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid maternity leave
from her company for the birth. She can take another seven months off
beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if she wants, with her job
guaranteed under French law.

When her son Louis was born, healthy and by way of a normal delivery, she
got to stay in her local French hospital, around the corner from where she
lives, for five full days, to rest.

Welcome to France, voted the best place in the world to live for the fifth
year in a row by International Living magazine, which has been analyzing
data and publishing its annual Quality of Life Index for 30 years.

One of the reasons France keeps winning the ranking is its world-class
health care system, which Dupouy just experienced first-hand.

"They treat expecting mums like treasures here," Dupouy told CNN from her
Paris apartment. "They take really good care of you. The health care system
is just amazing." She said she wouldn't have gotten the same maternity
leave -- or care -- back home in Australia.

At her job, Dupouy also gets seven weeks paid vacation a year, although
it's her first job as an attorney since graduating with a law degree in
Australia. She doesn't think twice about taking the Metro across town --
for just $1.37 a ride -- to visit a friend. Or she picks up a rental bike
at one of the many computerized bike hire racks in town to get around.

France scores high marks across the board in the survey, which is done
every January, from health care (100 points) to infrastructure (92 points)
to safety and risk (100 points).

"No surprise," said the magazine in its report. "Its (France's) tiresome
bureaucracy and high taxes are outweighed by an unsurpassable quality of
life, including the world's best health care."

"The bread, the cheese, the wine," Dan Prescher, special projects editor at
the magazine, told CNN, when asked why France just keeps on winning year
after year. "That weighs pretty heavily in quality of life."

Prescher admitted the magazine had an "American bias" since the vast
majority of its subscribers are Americans spending in U.S. dollars. "France
is one of those golden places in the American consciousness," he said.

The annual index ranks 194 countries and comprises nine categories: Cost of
Living, Culture and Leisure, Economy, Environment, Freedom, Health,
Infrastructure, Safety and Risk and Climate. The Index analyzes data from
several official sources, including government web sites, the World Health
Organization, and several media sources.

Following France in the top ten are Australia, Switzerland, Germany, New
Zealand, Luxembourg, the U.S., Belgium, Canada and Italy, in that order.

"France always nets high scores in most categories," the magazine said.
"But you don't need number-crunchers to tell you its 'bon vivant' lifestyle
is special. It's impossible to enumerate the joy of lingering for hours
over dinner and a bottle of red wine in a Parisian brasserie. Or strolling
beside the Seine on a spring morning, poking through the book vendors'
wares."

Other European countries slipped a little in the magazine's rankings this
year, with the exception of France and Germany. Britain dropped to 25th
place from last year's ranking of 20.

Variety is also seen as a major factor in France's appeal, with the survey
noting that "romantic Paris offers the best of everything, but services
don't fall away in Alsace's wine villages, in wild and lovely Corsica, in
lavender-scented Provence."

The United States dropped from third to seventh place in this year's
rankings, largely because of the grinding economic crisis last year.
"Sustaining the American dream has escalated out of the reach of many," the
magazine said.

"The depression hit the United States and Great Britain hard," Prescher
told CNN. "That weighs down the ratings."

Of course, France too has its problems. The country suffers from high youth
unemployment, particularly among the disaffected young people who live in
its equivalent of the projects, known as les banlieues.

Late last year, the French government opened a national discussion about
national identity, which has evolved into debates over whether immigrants,
and particularly Muslim immigrants, are French enough. The country has the
highest Muslim population of any European country, with an estimated six
million living in the country.

But for the most part, French people enjoy a good lifestyle. International
Living says that during their large chunk of leisure time, the French enjoy
visiting the country's many beaches and Alpine ski resorts.

Dupouy -- like more famous expats Ernest Hemingway and Julia Child before
her -- agrees.

She and her husband vacation every year at the seaside near Bordeaux, in
the southwest corner of France, where her husband's family has a home. They
also go skiing in the Alps during the winter.

She says that even if she and her husband decide to leave France for awhile
during their lives, they'll always come back -- every year, probably.

"The culture, the food, the family, it's all just really nice here," said
Dupouy.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-11 21:03:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 -0000, "Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
Pommes Frites!" <***@aurevoiramerique.lol> puked:

>http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/index.html
>
>Why France is best place to live in world

The coneheads were from France, weren't they..?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-11 21:21:51 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 11, 4:03 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 -0000, "Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
> Pommes Frites!" <***@aurevoiramerique.lol> puked:
>
> >http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/in...
>
> >Why France is best place to live in world
>
> The coneheads were from France, weren't they..?

France beats Florida any day, any hour, any micro-second. The people
can be a little snooty, but they're no worse than crass New Yorkers.
You just have to have the smarts to know how to deal with them. You
do know what smarts are, don't you? Apparently not. All you can
think of are coneheads.
mikey
2010-02-11 22:02:36 UTC
Permalink
I'd like to reply but I'm a little froggy today. Sorry but this was
pond to happen because last night I fell asleep at my girlfriend's pad.
x***@xxx.com
2010-02-12 03:08:39 UTC
Permalink
wy wrote:

> On Feb 11, 4:03 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 -0000, "Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
>>Pommes Frites!" <***@aurevoiramerique.lol> puked:
>>
>>
>>>http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/in...
>>
>>>Why France is best place to live in world
>>
>>The coneheads were from France, weren't they..?
>
>
> France beats Florida any day, any hour, any micro-second. The people
> can be a little snooty, but they're no worse than crass New Yorkers.
> You just have to have the smarts to know how to deal with them. You
> do know what smarts are, don't you? Apparently not. All you can
> think of are coneheads.
>

French people are happy in france, it isn't the best place in the world
to live unless you are french. The muslim influx is unhappifying the
french by the day. There will be more French immigrants here in the
coming years.

On paper france has the best of everything for its citizens, unless a
citizen want to start his own business, save some money or own and rent
property. Since everything in France is skewed towards keeping the
citizens happy it takes 6 months and costs nearly a year's salary to
fire someone. It is easier for a landlord to wait for a deadbeat to die
than try to evict him.

I can see why the average man on the street reports being happy there
though.
Magda
2010-02-12 11:35:00 UTC
Permalink
On 12/02/2010 04:08, ***@XXX.COM wrote:

>
> French people are happy in france, it isn't the best place in the world
> to live unless you are french. The muslim influx is unhappifying the
> french by the day. There will be more French immigrants here in the
> coming years.
>
> On paper france has the best of everything for its citizens, unless a
> citizen want to start his own business, save some money or own and rent
> property. Since everything in France is skewed towards keeping the
> citizens happy it takes 6 months and costs nearly a year's salary to
> fire someone. It is easier for a landlord to wait for a deadbeat to die
> than try to evict him.
>
> I can see why the average man on the street reports being happy there
> though.

I'm not French, I've done my bit of travelling and, frankly, I don't
know many places better to live in than France. I don't know any, actually.

No one said it was *perfect*, after all.
x***@xxx.com
2010-02-13 03:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Magda wrote:
> On 12/02/2010 04:08, ***@XXX.COM wrote:
>
> >
> > French people are happy in france, it isn't the best place in the world
> > to live unless you are french. The muslim influx is unhappifying the
> > french by the day. There will be more French immigrants here in the
> > coming years.
> >
> > On paper france has the best of everything for its citizens, unless a
> > citizen want to start his own business, save some money or own and rent
> > property. Since everything in France is skewed towards keeping the
> > citizens happy it takes 6 months and costs nearly a year's salary to
> > fire someone. It is easier for a landlord to wait for a deadbeat to die
> > than try to evict him.
> >
> > I can see why the average man on the street reports being happy there
> > though.
>
> I'm not French, I've done my bit of travelling and, frankly, I don't
> know many places better to live in than France. I don't know any, actually.
>
> No one said it was *perfect*, after all.
>
>
Make a point then. You seem stupid.
Magda
2010-02-15 14:59:22 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:55:53 -0500, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com>
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... Magda wrote:
... > On 12/02/2010 04:08, ***@XXX.COM wrote:
... >
... > >
... > > French people are happy in france, it isn't the best place in the world
... > > to live unless you are french. The muslim influx is unhappifying the
... > > french by the day. There will be more French immigrants here in the
... > > coming years.
... > >
... > > On paper france has the best of everything for its citizens, unless a
... > > citizen want to start his own business, save some money or own and rent
... > > property. Since everything in France is skewed towards keeping the
... > > citizens happy it takes 6 months and costs nearly a year's salary to
... > > fire someone. It is easier for a landlord to wait for a deadbeat to die
... > > than try to evict him.
... > >
... > > I can see why the average man on the street reports being happy there
... > > though.
... >
... > I'm not French, I've done my bit of travelling and, frankly, I don't
... > know many places better to live in than France. I don't know any, actually.
... >
... > No one said it was *perfect*, after all.
... >
... >
... Make a point then. You seem stupid.

Oh, the "divine sparkle" didn't see my point? What a surprise... :pppppp



=====
It sounds much better in French, but then, everything does.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
Tater Gumfries
2010-02-15 15:15:33 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 12, 4:35 am, Magda <***@noos.fr> wrote:
> On 12/02/2010 04:08, ***@XXX.COM wrote:
>
>  >
>  > French people are happy in france, it isn't the best place in the world
>  > to live unless you are french. The muslim influx is unhappifying the
>  > french by the day. There will be more French immigrants here in the
>  > coming years.
>  >
>  > On paper france has the best of everything for its citizens, unless a
>  > citizen want to start his own business, save some money or own and rent
>  > property. Since everything in France is skewed towards keeping the
>  > citizens happy it takes 6 months and costs nearly a year's salary to
>  > fire someone. It is easier for a landlord to wait for a deadbeat to die
>  > than try to evict him.
>  >
>  > I can see why the average man on the street reports being happy there
>  > though.
>
> I'm not French, I've done my bit of travelling and, frankly, I don't
> know many places better to live in than France. I don't know any, actually.
>
> No one said it was *perfect*, after all.

Tater loves France, but he still prefers Italy. French wines are
better and housing is cheaper, but Italian food is better and the
people are friendlier.

Tater
Magda
2010-02-17 14:34:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:15:33 -0800 (PST), Tater Gumfries <***@kernsholler.net> egrapse
sto mhnyma syzhthshs :

... On Feb 12, 4:35 am, Magda <***@noos.fr> wrote:
... > On 12/02/2010 04:08, ***@XXX.COM wrote:
... >
... >  >
... >  > French people are happy in france, it isn't the best place in the world
... >  > to live unless you are french. The muslim influx is unhappifying the
... >  > french by the day. There will be more French immigrants here in the
... >  > coming years.
... >  >
... >  > On paper france has the best of everything for its citizens, unless a
... >  > citizen want to start his own business, save some money or own and rent
... >  > property. Since everything in France is skewed towards keeping the
... >  > citizens happy it takes 6 months and costs nearly a year's salary to
... >  > fire someone. It is easier for a landlord to wait for a deadbeat to die
... >  > than try to evict him.
... >  >
... >  > I can see why the average man on the street reports being happy there
... >  > though.
... >
... > I'm not French, I've done my bit of travelling and, frankly, I don't
... > know many places better to live in than France. I don't know any, actually.
... >
... > No one said it was *perfect*, after all.
...
... Tater loves France, but he still prefers Italy. French wines are
... better and housing is cheaper, but Italian food is better and the
... people are friendlier.

As long as they can put their hands on your money, they are...

I lived there for a year, I know!



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
Harold Burton
2010-02-13 04:15:10 UTC
Permalink
In article <hl2gno$h2r$***@news.eternal-september.org>,
"***@XXX.COM" <***@xxx.com> wrote:

> wy wrote:
>
> > On Feb 11, 4:03 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 -0000, "Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
> >>Pommes Frites!" <***@aurevoiramerique.lol> puked:
> >>
> >>
> >>>http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/in...
> >>
> >>>Why France is best place to live in world
> >>
> >>The coneheads were from France, weren't they..?
> >
> >
> > France beats Florida any day, any hour, any micro-second. The people
> > can be a little snooty, but they're no worse than crass New Yorkers.
> > You just have to have the smarts to know how to deal with them. You
> > do know what smarts are, don't you? Apparently not. All you can
> > think of are coneheads.
> >
>
> French people are happy in france, it isn't the best place in the world
> to live unless you are french. The muslim influx is unhappifying the
> french by the day. There will be more French immigrants here in the
> coming years.
>
> On paper france has the best of everything for its citizens, unless a
> citizen want to start his own business, save some money or own and rent
> property. Since everything in France is skewed towards keeping the
> citizens happy it takes 6 months and costs nearly a year's salary to
> fire someone. It is easier for a landlord to wait for a deadbeat to die
> than try to evict him.
>
> I can see why the average man on the street reports being happy there
> though.



Bingo!!!
Harold Burton
2010-02-13 04:14:11 UTC
Permalink
In article
<b3b11328-296e-45f7-bf52-***@o8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
wy <***@myself.com> wrote:

> On Feb 11, 4:03 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 -0000, "Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
> > Pommes Frites!" <***@aurevoiramerique.lol> puked:
> >
> > >http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/in...
> >
> > >Why France is best place to live in world
> >
> > The coneheads were from France, weren't they..?
>
> France beats Florida any day, any hour, any micro-second. The people
> can be a little snooty...



What an understatement.



Snicker.
wy
2010-02-13 06:18:53 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 12, 11:14 pm, Harold Burton <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <b3b11328-296e-45f7-bf52-***@o8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  wy<***@myself.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 4:03 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 -0000, "Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
> > > Pommes Frites!" <***@aurevoiramerique.lol> puked:
>
> > > >http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/in...
>
> > > >Why France is best place to live in world
>
> > > The coneheads were from France, weren't they..?
>
> > France beats Florida any day, any hour, any micro-second.  The people
> > can be a little snooty...
>
> What an understatement.
>
> Snicker.

Snooty would be the preferred choice to you - ugly.
JaxKayaker
2010-02-17 04:38:20 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 13, 1:18 am, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 11:14 pm, Harold Burton <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <b3b11328-296e-45f7-bf52-***@o8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >  wy<***@myself.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 11, 4:03 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 -0000, "Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
> > > > Pommes Frites!" <***@aurevoiramerique.lol> puked:
>
> > > > >http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/in...
>
> > > > >Why France is best place to live in world
>
> > > > The coneheads were from France, weren't they..?
>
> > > France beats Florida any day, any hour, any micro-second.  The people
> > > can be a little snooty...
>
> > What an understatement.
>
> > Snicker.
>
> Snooty would be the preferred choice to you - ugly.

France is a nice enough place. It has good food, good paintings, nice
countryside. Great
cathedrals and castles. The people are the most obnoxious I have met
ever traveling all
around the world. The only chance you have with them is if you speak
French and even then
they will let you know how much they hate the British. You think we
have a problem with
radical muslims in the US, have you visited Paris lately? Paris is
one of those places it is nice
have visited a few times. But living there? I'll take a house on the
beach in Florida anytime!
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-15 13:27:50 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:21:51 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 11, 4:03 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 -0000, "Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
>> Pommes Frites!" <***@aurevoiramerique.lol> puked:
>>
>> >http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/in...
>>
>> >Why France is best place to live in world
>>
>> The coneheads were from France, weren't they..?
>
>France beats Florida any day,

What do you have against Cubans, Haitians and dying old fucks from up
north?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-15 16:50:32 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 15, 8:27 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:21:51 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >On Feb 11, 4:03Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 -0000, "Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
> >> Pommes Frites!" <***@aurevoiramerique.lol> puked:
>
> >> >http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/in...
>
> >> >Why France is best place to live in world
>
> >> The coneheads were from France, weren't they..?
>
> >France beats Florida any day,
>
> What do you have against Cubans, Haitians and dying old fucks from up
> north?

Nothing. It's the kind of French people we have here that I'm not too
crazy about. And the terrain is pretty boring too.
wull
2010-02-15 17:58:03 UTC
Permalink
"wy" <***@myself.com> wrote in message
news:be7f6d03-9cc9-4252-a6fe-***@t1g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 15, 8:27 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:21:51 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >On Feb 11, 4:03Êpm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 -0000, "Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
> >> Pommes Frites!" <***@aurevoiramerique.lol> puked:
>
> >> >http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/in...
>
> >> >Why France is best place to live in world
>
> >> The coneheads were from France, weren't they..?
>
> >France beats Florida any day,
>
> What do you have against Cubans, Haitians and dying old fucks from up
> north?

Nothing. It's the kind of French people we have here that I'm not too
crazy about. And the terrain is pretty boring too.

It may be a great place to live if you speak the language. If you do not,
don't expect to be treated kindly.

Wull
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-15 18:48:28 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:50:32 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 15, 8:27 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:21:51 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >On Feb 11, 4:03Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 -0000, "Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
>> >> Pommes Frites!" <***@aurevoiramerique.lol> puked:
>>
>> >> >http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/in...
>>
>> >> >Why France is best place to live in world
>>
>> >> The coneheads were from France, weren't they..?
>>
>> >France beats Florida any day,
>>
>> What do you have against Cubans, Haitians and dying old fucks from up
>> north?
>
>Nothing. It's the kind of French people we have here that I'm not too
>crazy about. And the terrain is pretty boring too.
>

I didn't realize that you were from Florida, or maybe I forgot.
Mountains are overrated and ok for vacation, IMO. But as for the
seasonal frogs, I agree.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Christopher Helms
2010-02-15 15:35:12 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 11, 3:21 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 4:03 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 -0000, "Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
> > Pommes Frites!" <***@aurevoiramerique.lol> puked:
>
> > >http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/in...
>
> > >Why France is best place to live in world
>
> > The coneheads were from France, weren't they..?
>
> France beats Florida any day, any hour, any micro-second.  The people
> can be a little snooty, but they're no worse than crass New Yorkers.


Depending on how you measure it, many countries are better places to
live than the US. We swagger around bragging on ourselves like it's
still 1952, but in reality everything in America is slowly falling
apart. We don't make anything anymore, we don't lead anymore, we
aren't particularly respected anymore, our infrastructure is falling
apart and we run annual trade deficits that are larger than many
countries GDPs. You know what we are on the global stage? We're one of
those 1100 pound guys you see on Discovery Health who just lays there
naked on a rubber sheet with a blanket over him, crapping himself and
sucking up everybody else's resources because he can't fucking move
anymore. China (among others) buys our debt, Saudi Arabia sells us
oil, Mexico makes stuff we used to make and we just lay there with our
face in a bucket of chicken, still bragging about how we won The Big
One back in '45.
wy
2010-02-15 16:57:29 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 15, 10:35 am, Christopher Helms <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 11, 3:21 pm,wy<***@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 11, 4:03 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 -0000, "Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
> > > Pommes Frites!" <***@aurevoiramerique.lol> puked:
>
> > > >http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/in...
>
> > > >Why France is best place to live in world
>
> > > The coneheads were from France, weren't they..?
>
> > France beats Florida any day, any hour, any micro-second.  The people
> > can be a little snooty, but they're no worse than crass New Yorkers.
>
> Depending on how you measure it, many countries are better places to
> live than the US. We swagger around bragging on ourselves like it's
> still 1952, but in reality everything in America is slowly falling
> apart. We don't make anything anymore, we don't lead anymore, we
> aren't particularly respected anymore, our infrastructure is falling
> apart and we run annual trade deficits that are larger than many
> countries GDPs. You know what we are on the global stage? We're one of
> those 1100 pound guys you see on Discovery Health who just lays there
> naked on a rubber sheet with a blanket over him, crapping himself and
> sucking up everybody else's resources because he can't fucking move
> anymore. China (among others) buys our debt, Saudi Arabia sells us
> oil, Mexico makes stuff we used to make and we just lay there with our
> face in a bucket of chicken, still bragging about how we won The Big
> One back in '45.

So perfectly dead-on correct, sir.
KK
2010-02-11 21:39:40 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 +0000, Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello Pommes
Frites! wrote:

> Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid maternity
> leave from her company for the birth. She can take another seven months
> off beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if she wants, with her job
> guaranteed under French law.


Well, that's just great if you're her. But what if you're her employer?

That law fucks the businesses that hire people and create jobs. And it
fucks small business disproportionately.

Government can't give to one person without taking from another.
wy
2010-02-11 22:20:49 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 11, 4:39 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 +0000, Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello Pommes
>
> Frites! wrote:
> > Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid maternity
> > leave from her company for the birth. She can take another seven months
> > off beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if she wants, with her job
> > guaranteed under French law.
>
> Well, that's just great if you're her.  But what if you're her employer?
>
> That law fucks the businesses that hire people and create jobs.  And it
> fucks small business disproportionately.

Why are you so concerned about businesses? The fact of the matter is
that businesses are doing no better nor worse in France than in the
U.S., if you're going to measure it according to unemployment.
Actually, unemployment is a little less in France than in the U.S.
right now and still, with the level being almost equal between them,
France can deliver the kind of universal health coverage the U.S. is
unable to do. Screw businesses, just figure out why it is that with
practically the same employment climate in both countries, you don't
have to worry about health care in France but it's a big, big problem
for people in America. And once you figure that out, maybe you'll
get down to what the real root of the problem is and not what right-
wingers want you to believe it is.

>
> Government can't give to one person without taking from another.  

Neither can business. Think about it.
KK
2010-02-11 22:32:49 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:20:49 -0800, wy wrote:

> On Feb 11, 4:39 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 +0000, Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello Pommes
>>
>> Frites! wrote:
>> > Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid maternity
>> > leave from her company for the birth. She can take another seven
>> > months off beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if she wants, with
>> > her job guaranteed under French law.
>>
>> Well, that's just great if you're her.  But what if you're her
>> employer?
>>
>> That law fucks the businesses that hire people and create jobs.  And it
>> fucks small business disproportionately.
>
> Why are you so concerned about businesses?

Why are you not? No businesses, no jobs. Why is it fair to force
someone to pay for five months of time off?


> The fact of the matter is
> that businesses are doing no better nor worse in France than in the
> U.S., if you're going to measure it according to unemployment.

Businesses in France are doing worse than they would be if they weren't
coerced by law into paying for extended, paid, time off.




> Actually,
> unemployment is a little less in France than in the U.S. right now and
> still, with the level being almost equal between them, France can
> deliver the kind of universal health coverage the U.S. is unable to do.
> Screw businesses

You're a sheep. Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
any manner of fucking you wish: they're people. Individuals who have
created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
other things, provides livelihood for its employees.



>, just figure out why it is that with practically the
> same employment climate in both countries, you don't have to worry about
> health care in France but it's a big, big problem for people in America.

Health care is a different issue than coercing employers into paying
people who aren't working.


> And once you figure that out, maybe you'll get down to what the real
> root of the problem is and not what right- wingers want you to believe
> it is.

Whatever the problem is, coercive government isn't the answer. And to
respond to your ignorant, condescending tone: government caters to
business, when it should and when it shouldn't. The answer isn't to try
to keep politicians from acting in their own self-interest. It's to
limit the power which they'll always abuse.



>
>
>> Government can't give to one person without taking from another.
>
> Neither can business. Think about it.

Wrong, on two counts.

First of all, whether you believe it or not, you can choose not to
patronize a business. You cannot choose not to be a customer/victim of
the government.

Secondly, a business (big corporation, small business, individual,
whatever) exists to create more than it uses. A business takes in more
than the costs of its overhead and raw material, allowing it to pay its
employees, taxes on those employees, etc. etc., etc.

Think about it.
wy
2010-02-11 22:57:28 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 11, 5:32 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:20:49 -0800, wy wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 4:39 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 +0000, Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello Pommes
>
> >> Frites! wrote:
> >> > Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid maternity
> >> > leave from her company for the birth. She can take another seven
> >> > months off beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if she wants, with
> >> > her job guaranteed under French law.
>
> >> Well, that's just great if you're her.  But what if you're her
> >> employer?
>
> >> That law fucks the businesses that hire people and create jobs.  And it
> >> fucks small business disproportionately.
>
> > Why are you so concerned about businesses?  
>
> Why are you not?  No businesses, no jobs.  Why is it fair to force
> someone to pay for five months of time off?
>
> > The fact of the matter is
> > that businesses are doing no better nor worse in France than in the
> > U.S., if you're going to measure it according to unemployment.
>
> Businesses in France are doing worse than they would be if they weren't
> coerced by law into paying for extended, paid, time off.

Then unemployment would be worse, wouldn't it? But it's not. The
rate is actually less than the U.S.'s. Explain that.

>
> > Actually,
> > unemployment is a little less in France than in the U.S. right now and
> > still, with the level being almost equal between them, France can
> > deliver the kind of universal health coverage the U.S. is unable to do.
> > Screw businesses
>
> You're a sheep.  Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> any manner of fucking you wish:  they're people.  Individuals who have
> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.

Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
business. You think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
in that store he's running? All that stuff he sells came from other
businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
nothing to sell.

>
> >, just figure out why it is that with practically the
> > same employment climate in both countries, you don't have to worry about
> > health care in France but it's a big, big problem for people in America.
>
> Health care is a different issue than coercing employers into paying
> people who aren't working.

You have two choices, even in America: you pay for health care or you
don't. There's no getting around that. And unless you're poverty-
stricken, you gotta pay for something you're going to use eventually.
Even you "coerce" yourself into paying for some kind of a health
plan. And if you aren't covered or paying into one, then you're doing
little more than sucking on the government tit, because they only end
up paying for you anyway - even in America. So, your real point
is ... ?

>
> >   And once you figure that out, maybe you'll get down to what the real
> > root of the problem is and not what right- wingers want you to believe
> > it is.
>
> Whatever the problem is, coercive government isn't the answer.  And to
> respond to your ignorant, condescending tone: government caters to
> business, when it should and when it shouldn't.  The answer isn't to try
> to keep politicians from acting in their own self-interest.  It's to
> limit the power which they'll always abuse.

If government caters to business, then why do you vote? Let
businesses vote for you. Isn't it supposed to be "Government of the
people, by the people and for the people," not "Government of the
business, by the business and for the business"?

> >> Government can't give to one person without taking from another.
>
> > Neither can business.  Think about it.
>
> Wrong, on two counts.

In order for Sanka to give you your morning coffee, they need to take
the coffee beans away from somebody. And if I'm wrong on two counts,
does that mean you're unable to think about it? Brain damage will do
that to you.

>
> First of all, whether you believe it or not, you can choose not to
> patronize a business.  You cannot choose not to be a customer/victim of
> the government.

And therein lies the difference between a business and government.
Business is not government, government is not business. Two entirely
different entities operating with entirely different sets of rules.
Didn't they teach you this stuff in the third grade class you flunked?


>
> Secondly, a business (big corporation, small business, individual,
> whatever) exists to create more than it uses.  A business takes in more
> than the costs of its overhead and raw material, allowing it to pay its
> employees, taxes on those employees, etc. etc., etc.

Most businesses run on credit and debt, very few actually make real
money, a lot of it is in assets and/or only on paper. Even those that
do make money still end up cutting employees off their payroll. Go
figure, Mr. Businessman.

http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/many_highly_profitable_companies_cut_jobs_in_2009/
KK
2010-02-12 14:13:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800, wy wrote:

> On Feb 11, 5:32 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:20:49 -0800, wy wrote:
>> > On Feb 11, 4:39 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 +0000, Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
>> >> Pommes
>>
>> >> Frites! wrote:
>> >> > Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid
>> >> > maternity leave from her company for the birth. She can take
>> >> > another seven months off beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if
>> >> > she wants, with her job guaranteed under French law.
>>
>> >> Well, that's just great if you're her.  But what if you're her
>> >> employer?
>>
>> >> That law fucks the businesses that hire people and create jobs.  And
>> >> it fucks small business disproportionately.
>>
>> > Why are you so concerned about businesses?
>>
>> Why are you not?  No businesses, no jobs.  Why is it fair to force
>> someone to pay for five months of time off?
>>
>> > The fact of the matter is
>> > that businesses are doing no better nor worse in France than in the
>> > U.S., if you're going to measure it according to unemployment.
>>
>> Businesses in France are doing worse than they would be if they weren't
>> coerced by law into paying for extended, paid, time off.
>
> Then unemployment would be worse, wouldn't it? But it's not. The rate
> is actually less than the U.S.'s. Explain that.

The US and France are too different to compare as apples:apples in
analyzing the effect of one regulation. Also, the US is experiencing a
more serious downturn than France.



>
>
>> > Actually,
>> > unemployment is a little less in France than in the U.S. right now
>> > and still, with the level being almost equal between them, France can
>> > deliver the kind of universal health coverage the U.S. is unable to
>> > do. Screw businesses
>>
>> You're a sheep.  Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
>> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
>> any manner of fucking you wish:  they're people.  Individuals who have
>> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
>> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.

Do you really believe that?

> Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> business. You think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> in that store he's running?

He increased the value of the products he sells, yes.


> All that stuff he sells came from other
> businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> nothing to sell.

You are really ignorant of how the world works.


>
>> >, just figure out why it is that with practically the
>> > same employment climate in both countries, you don't have to worry
>> > about health care in France but it's a big, big problem for people in
>> > America.
>>
>> Health care is a different issue than coercing employers into paying
>> people who aren't working.
>
> You have two choices, even in America: you pay for health care or you
> don't. There's no getting around that. And unless you're poverty-
> stricken, you gotta pay for something you're going to use eventually.
> Even you "coerce" yourself into paying for some kind of a health plan.
> And if you aren't covered or paying into one, then you're doing little
> more than sucking on the government tit, because they only end up paying
> for you anyway - even in America. So, your real point is ... ?

My point is that coercing an employer to pay for almost half a year's
salary for an employee not to work is wrong. Wrong morally, wrong
practically.




>
>> >   And once you figure that out, maybe you'll get down to what the
>> >   real
>> > root of the problem is and not what right- wingers want you to
>> > believe it is.
>>
>> Whatever the problem is, coercive government isn't the answer.  And to
>> respond to your ignorant, condescending tone: government caters to
>> business, when it should and when it shouldn't.  The answer isn't to
>> try to keep politicians from acting in their own self-interest.  It's
>> to limit the power which they'll always abuse.
>
> If government caters to business, then why do you vote?

I usually vote for people who won't win - people who won't cater to
moneyed interests (on either side).


> Let businesses
> vote for you. Isn't it supposed to be "Government of the people, by the
> people and for the people," not "Government of the business, by the
> business and for the business"?
>
>> >> Government can't give to one person without taking from another.
>>
>> > Neither can business.  Think about it.
>>
>> Wrong, on two counts.
>
> In order for Sanka to give you your morning coffee, they need to take
> the coffee beans away from somebody.

No, asshole, Sanka doesn't steal or coerce the beans from someone. They
purchase them in a mutually consensual transaction. That is the
*opposite* of how government works.


> And if I'm wrong on two counts,
> does that mean you're unable to think about it? Brain damage will do
> that to you.

I'm perfectly able to think about and discuss it.



>
>> First of all, whether you believe it or not, you can choose not to
>> patronize a business.  You cannot choose not to be a customer/victim of
>> the government.
>
> And therein lies the difference between a business and government.
> Business is not government, government is not business. Two entirely
> different entities operating with entirely different sets of rules.
> Didn't they teach you this stuff in the third grade class you flunked?

Huh? You're the one who equated them with your line:


"Neither can business.  Think about it."


>
>
>> Secondly, a business (big corporation, small business, individual,
>> whatever) exists to create more than it uses.  A business takes in more
>> than the costs of its overhead and raw material, allowing it to pay its
>> employees, taxes on those employees, etc. etc., etc.
>
> Most businesses run on credit and debt, very few actually make real
> money, a lot of it is in assets and/or only on paper. Even those that
> do make money still end up cutting employees off their payroll. Go
> figure, Mr. Businessman.


Businesses that don't make money fail. You don't strike me as someone
who has participated in the real world.


> http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/
many_highly_profitable_companies_cut_jobs_in_2009/


So what? When apples get more expensive, does your grocer picket your
house because you buy fewer apples?
wy
2010-02-12 16:40:28 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 12, 9:13 am, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800,wywrote:
> > On Feb 11, 5:32 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:20:49 -0800,wywrote:
> >> > On Feb 11, 4:39 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 +0000, Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
> >> >> Pommes
>
> >> >> Frites! wrote:
> >> >> > Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid
> >> >> > maternity leave from her company for the birth. She can take
> >> >> > another seven months off beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if
> >> >> > she wants, with her job guaranteed under French law.
>
> >> >> Well, that's just great if you're her.  But what if you're her
> >> >> employer?
>
> >> >> That law fucks the businesses that hire people and create jobs.  And
> >> >> it fucks small business disproportionately.
>
> >> > Why are you so concerned about businesses?
>
> >> Why are you not?  No businesses, no jobs.  Why is it fair to force
> >> someone to pay for five months of time off?
>
> >> > The fact of the matter is
> >> > that businesses are doing no better nor worse in France than in the
> >> > U.S., if you're going to measure it according to unemployment.
>
> >> Businesses in France are doing worse than they would be if they weren't
> >> coerced by law into paying for extended, paid, time off.
>
> > Then unemployment would be worse, wouldn't it?  But it's not.  The rate
> > is actually less than the U.S.'s.  Explain that.
>
> The US and France are too different to compare as apples:apples in
> analyzing the effect of one regulation.  Also, the US is experiencing a
> more serious downturn than France.
>
> >> > Actually,
> >> > unemployment is a little less in France than in the U.S. right now
> >> > and still, with the level being almost equal between them, France can
> >> > deliver the kind of universal health coverage the U.S. is unable to
> >> > do. Screw businesses
>
> >> You're a sheep.  Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> >> any manner of fucking you wish:  they're people.  Individuals who have
> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> > Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>
> Do you really believe that?

Well, if you don't, you're more naive about business than I am. Just
look at every small business you walk by and tell me what they've
created besides a name for their business. Unless the owner
personally produces his or her own arts and crafts or other products,
and those types are extremely few in number for anyone to be able to
survive on, that business will have bought their stock from larger
businesses that actually produce or house the stock they need to
sell. Small business is dependent on big business. It's like a guy
who wants to start a computer shop. He can create his own computers
to sell, but is that practical? No. It's easier and more economical
to go to the giant computer makers and get their products into his
store to sell. All the guy needed to create was a name for his
shop.
 
>
> > Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> > business.  You think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> > in that store he's running?
>
> He increased the value of the products he sells, yes.

That's not creating anything. That's just selling what would've been
sold anyway if some other guy opened up the same store across the
street.

>
> > All that stuff he sells came from other
> > businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> > run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> > nothing to sell.
>
> You are really ignorant of how the world works.

Prove otherwise.


> >> >, just figure out why it is that with practically the
> >> > same employment climate in both countries, you don't have to worry
> >> > about health care in France but it's a big, big problem for people in
> >> > America.
>
> >> Health care is a different issue than coercing employers into paying
> >> people who aren't working.
>
> > You have two choices, even in America: you pay for health care or you
> > don't.  There's no getting around that.  And unless you're poverty-
> > stricken, you gotta pay for something you're going to use eventually.
> > Even you "coerce" yourself into paying for some kind of a health plan.
> > And if you aren't covered or paying into one, then you're doing little
> > more than sucking on the government tit, because they only end up paying
> > for you anyway - even in America.  So, your real point is ... ?
>
> My point is that coercing an employer to pay for almost half a year's
> salary for an employee not to work is wrong.  Wrong morally, wrong
> practically.

As I understand it, it's not paying them to not work, it's a severance
pay or a form of unemployment insurance if they're laid off work.
Instead of getting unemployment insurance from the government, they
get it from business. Whether I agree with that or not, I don't
know. It's all in the details of exactly how that works and whether
it ultimately is mutually beneficial to both businesses and the
government or not compared to the alternative, despite whatever
grumblings there may be from businesses. But still, businesses are
functioning and people are employed - the unemployment rate has now
dipped to 8.3 in France, better than the U.S.'s 9.7 under its dog-eat-
dog approach to doing things. So in that sense, the French system
would seem to be a better one. Not to mention that everyone is
covered under their universal health care program on top of that
whether they have a job or not. They're doing something right, and if
it's at the expense of a handful of billionaires to protect the well-
being of 62 million people, then more power to them.


> >> >   And once you figure that out, maybe you'll get down to what the
> >> >   real
> >> > root of the problem is and not what right- wingers want you to
> >> > believe it is.
>
> >> Whatever the problem is, coercive government isn't the answer.  And to
> >> respond to your ignorant, condescending tone: government caters to
> >> business, when it should and when it shouldn't.  The answer isn't to
> >> try to keep politicians from acting in their own self-interest.  It's
> >> to limit the power which they'll always abuse.
>
> > If government caters to business, then why do you vote?
>
> I usually vote for people who won't win - people who won't cater to
> moneyed interests (on either side).

They all cater to it, eventually. There's no getting around it. So
you just might as well not vote at all.


>
> >  Let businesses
> > vote for you.  Isn't it supposed to be "Government of the people, by the
> > people and for the people," not "Government of the business, by the
> > business and for the business"?
>
> >> >> Government can't give to one person without taking from another.
>
> >> > Neither can business.  Think about it.
>
> >> Wrong, on two counts.
>
> > In order for Sanka to give you your morning coffee, they need to take
> > the coffee beans away from somebody.
>
> No, asshole, Sanka doesn't steal or coerce the beans from someone.  They
> purchase them in a mutually consensual transaction.  That is the
> *opposite* of how government works.

I didn't say they steal it. They take it. You can mollify it by
whatever warm and fuzzy language you want to use, but they actually
take the coffee beans away from somebody, whether they pay for them or
not. You're selling a bed. A guy comes over to buy it and pays for
it. Then you tell him to "take it" away. And the guy takes it away
from you. It's what happens. In order for him to have that bed, he
needs to take it away from you. In order for you to have your coffee,
Sanka needs to take the beans away from that Colombian bean grower.

>
> >  And if I'm wrong on two counts,
> > does that mean you're unable to think about it?  Brain damage will do
> > that to you.
>
> I'm perfectly able to think about and discuss it.

Okay. I'll try not to disturb that happy thought of yours.


> >> First of all, whether you believe it or not, you can choose not to
> >> patronize a business.  You cannot choose not to be a customer/victim of
> >> the government.
>
> > And therein lies the difference between a business and government.
> > Business is not government, government is not business.  Two entirely
> > different entities operating with entirely different sets of rules.
> > Didn't they teach you this stuff in the third grade class you flunked?
>
> Huh?  You're the one who equated them with your line:
>
> "Neither can business.  Think about it."

In relation to what you specifically said before, not to what I said
here. Two different things.


> >> Secondly, a business (big corporation, small business, individual,
> >> whatever) exists to create more than it uses.  A business takes in more
> >> than the costs of its overhead and raw material, allowing it to pay its
> >> employees, taxes on those employees, etc. etc., etc.
>
> > Most businesses run on credit and debt, very few actually make real
> > money, a lot of it is in assets and/or only on paper.  Even those that
> > do make money still end up cutting employees off their payroll.  Go
> > figure, Mr. Businessman.
>
> Businesses that don't make money fail.  You don't strike me as someone
> who has participated in the real world.

Businesses that don't make money either get bailouts or go bankrupt
and start all over again. That's the real world. Or weren't you
awake through much of 2009? But, yes, the smaller and less savvy
businesses will fail otherwise.

>
> >http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/
>
> many_highly_profitable_companies_cut_jobs_in_2009/
>
> So what?  When apples get more expensive, does your grocer picket your
> house because you buy fewer apples?

Who says anything about something being more expensive? These are
already profitable companies like Walmart. A huge billion-dollar
company and they still want to dump over 10,000 employees from their
Sam's Club division? How much more profitable does Walmart have to be
at the expense of how many more employees?
I_Am_Fish
2010-02-12 17:06:08 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 12, 11:40 am, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 9:13 am, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800,wywrote:
> > > On Feb 11, 5:32 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:20:49 -0800,wywrote:
> > >> > On Feb 11, 4:39 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> > >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 +0000, Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
> > >> >> Pommes
>
> > >> >> Frites! wrote:
> > >> >> > Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid
> > >> >> > maternity leave from her company for the birth. She can take
> > >> >> > another seven months off beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if
> > >> >> > she wants, with her job guaranteed under French law.
>
> > >> >> Well, that's just great if you're her.  But what if you're her
> > >> >> employer?
>
> > >> >> That law fucks the businesses that hire people and create jobs.  And
> > >> >> it fucks small business disproportionately.
>
> > >> > Why are you so concerned about businesses?
>
> > >> Why are you not?  No businesses, no jobs.  Why is it fair to force
> > >> someone to pay for five months of time off?
>
> > >> > The fact of the matter is
> > >> > that businesses are doing no better nor worse in France than in the
> > >> > U.S., if you're going to measure it according to unemployment.
>
> > >> Businesses in France are doing worse than they would be if they weren't
> > >> coerced by law into paying for extended, paid, time off.
>
> > > Then unemployment would be worse, wouldn't it?  But it's not.  The rate
> > > is actually less than the U.S.'s.  Explain that.
>
> > The US and France are too different to compare as apples:apples in
> > analyzing the effect of one regulation.  Also, the US is experiencing a
> > more serious downturn than France.
>
> > >> > Actually,
> > >> > unemployment is a little less in France than in the U.S. right now
> > >> > and still, with the level being almost equal between them, France can
> > >> > deliver the kind of universal health coverage the U.S. is unable to
> > >> > do. Screw businesses
>
> > >> You're a sheep.  Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> > >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> > >> any manner of fucking you wish:  they're people.  Individuals who have
> > >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> > >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> > > Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>
> > Do you really believe that?
>
> Well, if you don't, you're more naive about business than I am.  Just
> look at every small business you walk by and tell me what they've
> created besides a name for their business.  Unless the owner
> personally produces his or her own arts and crafts or other products,
> and those types are extremely few in number for anyone to be able to
> survive on, that business will have bought their stock from larger
> businesses that actually produce or house the stock they need to
> sell.  Small business is dependent on big business.  It's like a guy
> who wants to start a computer shop.  He can create his own computers
> to sell, but is that practical?  No.  It's easier and more economical
> to go to the giant computer makers and get their products into his
> store to sell.  All the guy needed to create was a name for his
> shop.

I own a small CPA firm with 12 employees. I have bought no stock,
save some computers and office furniture not used for resale. I
provide tax and accounting services for other small business and many
individuals. So I am not dependent on big business.
wy
2010-02-12 23:50:01 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 12, 12:06 pm, I_Am_Fish <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 11:40 am,wy<***@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 9:13 am, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800,wywrote:
> > > > On Feb 11, 5:32 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:20:49 -0800,wywrote:
> > > >> > On Feb 11, 4:39 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 +0000, Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello
> > > >> >> Pommes
>
> > > >> >> Frites! wrote:
> > > >> >> > Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid
> > > >> >> > maternity leave from her company for the birth. She can take
> > > >> >> > another seven months off beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if
> > > >> >> > she wants, with her job guaranteed under French law.
>
> > > >> >> Well, that's just great if you're her.  But what if you're her
> > > >> >> employer?
>
> > > >> >> That law fucks the businesses that hire people and create jobs.  And
> > > >> >> it fucks small business disproportionately.
>
> > > >> > Why are you so concerned about businesses?
>
> > > >> Why are you not?  No businesses, no jobs.  Why is it fair to force
> > > >> someone to pay for five months of time off?
>
> > > >> > The fact of the matter is
> > > >> > that businesses are doing no better nor worse in France than in the
> > > >> > U.S., if you're going to measure it according to unemployment.
>
> > > >> Businesses in France are doing worse than they would be if they weren't
> > > >> coerced by law into paying for extended, paid, time off.
>
> > > > Then unemployment would be worse, wouldn't it?  But it's not.  The rate
> > > > is actually less than the U.S.'s.  Explain that.
>
> > > The US and France are too different to compare as apples:apples in
> > > analyzing the effect of one regulation.  Also, the US is experiencing a
> > > more serious downturn than France.
>
> > > >> > Actually,
> > > >> > unemployment is a little less in France than in the U.S. right now
> > > >> > and still, with the level being almost equal between them, France can
> > > >> > deliver the kind of universal health coverage the U.S. is unable to
> > > >> > do. Screw businesses
>
> > > >> You're a sheep.  Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> > > >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> > > >> any manner of fucking you wish:  they're people.  Individuals who have
> > > >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> > > >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> > > > Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>
> > > Do you really believe that?
>
> > Well, if you don't, you're more naive about business than I am.  Just
> > look at every small business you walk by and tell me what they've
> > created besides a name for their business.  Unless the owner
> > personally produces his or her own arts and crafts or other products,
> > and those types are extremely few in number for anyone to be able to
> > survive on, that business will have bought their stock from larger
> > businesses that actually produce or house the stock they need to
> > sell.  Small business is dependent on big business.  It's like a guy
> > who wants to start a computer shop.  He can create his own computers
> > to sell, but is that practical?  No.  It's easier and more economical
> > to go to the giant computer makers and get their products into his
> > store to sell.  All the guy needed to create was a name for his
> > shop.
>
> I own a small CPA firm with 12 employees.  I have bought no stock,
> save some computers and office furniture not used for resale.  I
> provide tax and accounting services for other small business and many
> individuals.  So I am not dependent on big business.

Yeah, but what did you create? You're not selling goods you
personally have created. You're providing services. There's a
difference. The other poster was implying that 75%-80% of businesses
actually created something out of nothing, which is impossible,
because even in your case you needed to purchase office furniture (you
didn't create your own), you needed to purchase office equipment (you
didn't create your own) and you needed to purchase office supplies
(you didn't create your own), and whatever else you needed to purchase
in order to run an office. All that stuff you bought you got from big
business, either through big business itself, i.e. HP, or via their
resellers, i.e. Staples, which itself is big business. For you to
have an office to house you and your 12 employees, you need to be
reliant on big business to get for you the things you get from them.
You could always do it on the cheap by shopping at thrift stores, the
Salvation Army and dollar stores, but that'd only end up making you
look cheap.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-15 13:31:41 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>>
>> You're a sheep.  Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
>> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
>> any manner of fucking you wish:  they're people.  Individuals who have
>> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
>> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
>Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
>business. You think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
>in that store he's running? All that stuff he sells came from other
>businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
>run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
>nothing to sell.

So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
lonesome?

Positively brilliant.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-15 16:56:05 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 15, 8:31 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
>
>
> >> You're a sheep. ÊSmall business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> >> any manner of fucking you wish: Êthey're people. ÊIndividuals who have
> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> >business.  You think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> >in that store he's running?  All that stuff he sells came from other
> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> >nothing to sell.
>
> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> lonesome?
>
> Positively brilliant.

Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? No. Without those
things, you'd have no job. In order for your end of the 75% of small
businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
can make that happen for you.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-15 18:53:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 15, 8:31 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> You're a sheep. ÊSmall business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
>> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
>> >> any manner of fucking you wish: Êthey're people. ÊIndividuals who have
>> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
>> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>>
>> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
>> >business.  You think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
>> >in that store he's running?  All that stuff he sells came from other
>> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
>> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
>> >nothing to sell.
>>
>> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
>> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
>> lonesome?
>>
>> Positively brilliant.
>
>Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? No. Without those
>things, you'd have no job. In order for your end of the 75% of small
>businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>can make that happen for you.
>
>

To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
shit? And did you grow your own food to produce that shit? If not,
you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
along with that.

And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
consider small businesses.

But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? That we
need large businesses? I'm not going to argue that. You started off
by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
false.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-15 22:05:39 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 15, 1:53 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 15, 8:31Êam, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> You're a sheep. æSmall business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: æthey're people. æIndividuals who have
> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> >> >business. ÊYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> >> >in that store he's running? ÊAll that stuff he sells came from other
> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> >> lonesome?
>
> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel?  No.  Without those
> >things, you'd have no job.  In order for your end of the 75% of small
> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> >can make that happen for you.
>
> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> shit?  And did you grow your own food to produce that shit?  If not,
> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> along with that.
>
> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> consider small businesses.
>
> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make?  That we
> need large businesses?  I'm not going to argue that.  You started off
> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> false.

Well, of course you're reselling the products. You're not keeping all
that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
KK
2010-02-16 12:53:34 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800, wy wrote:

> On Feb 15, 1:53 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 15, 8:31Êam, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> You're a sheep. æSmall business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs,
>> >> >> aren't monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil"
>> >> >> and justify any manner of fucking you wish: æthey're people.
>> >> >> æIndividuals who have created something out of nothing, with
>> >> >> their own capital, which amog other things, provides livelihood
>> >> >> for its employees.
>>
>> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their
>> >> >business. Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in
>> >> >order to have a business. ÊYou think the guy who runs the corner
>> >> >grocery made anything in that store he's running? ÊAll that stuff
>> >> >he sells came from other businesses, much bigger businesses, the
>> >> >25% of businesses that really run the engine of the economy,
>> >> >without which the other 75% would have nothing to sell.
>>
>> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it
>> >> would magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on
>> >> its lonesome?
>>
>> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel?  No.  Without those
>> >things, you'd have no job.  In order for your end of the 75% of small
>> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>> >can make that happen for you.
>>
>> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> shit?  And did you grow your own food to produce that shit?  If not,
>> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
>> along with that.
>>
>> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> consider small businesses.
>>
>> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make?  That we need
>> large businesses?  I'm not going to argue that.  You started off by
>> saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
>> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
>> false.
>
> Well, of course you're reselling the products. You're not keeping all
> that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?

You really don't see that a person who buys lumber and steel and a near-
infinity of other products and assembles them into a structure hasn't
made those same raw materials into something of more value?
wy
2010-02-16 20:18:44 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 7:53 am, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800,wywrote:
> > On Feb 15, 1:53 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31Êam, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> You're a sheep. æSmall business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs,
> >> >> >> aren't monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil"
> >> >> >> and justify any manner of fucking you wish: æthey're people.
> >> >> >> æIndividuals who have created something out of nothing, with
> >> >> >> their own capital, which amog other things, provides livelihood
> >> >> >> for its employees.
>
> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their
> >> >> >business. Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in
> >> >> >order to have a business. ÊYou think the guy who runs the corner
> >> >> >grocery made anything in that store he's running? ÊAll that stuff
> >> >> >he sells came from other businesses, much bigger businesses, the
> >> >> >25% of businesses that really run the engine of the economy,
> >> >> >without which the other 75% would have nothing to sell.
>
> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it
> >> >> would magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on
> >> >> its lonesome?
>
> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel?  No.  Without those
> >> >things, you'd have no job.  In order for your end of the 75% of small
> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> >> shit?  And did you grow your own food to produce that shit?  If not,
> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> >> along with that.
>
> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> >> consider small businesses.
>
> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make?  That we need
> >> large businesses?  I'm not going to argue that.  You started off by
> >> saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> >> false.
>
> > Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> > that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> You really don't see that a person who buys lumber and steel and a near-
> infinity of other products and assembles them into a structure hasn't
> made those same raw materials into something of more value?

What he does with it can't be done at all if someone didn't create the
raw material for him to play with in the first place. There's a
difference between actually creating the raw material, largely the
domain of big business, and then doing whatever you want with it,
largely the domain of small business. But the raw material still
needs to be created first, and small businesses do not in any
significant number create raw material.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-16 20:37:16 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:18:44 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 16, 7:53 am, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800,wywrote:
>> > On Feb 15, 1:53 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31Êam, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> You're a sheep. æSmall business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs,
>> >> >> >> aren't monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil"
>> >> >> >> and justify any manner of fucking you wish: æthey're people.
>> >> >> >> æIndividuals who have created something out of nothing, with
>> >> >> >> their own capital, which amog other things, provides livelihood
>> >> >> >> for its employees.
>>
>> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their
>> >> >> >business. Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in
>> >> >> >order to have a business. ÊYou think the guy who runs the corner
>> >> >> >grocery made anything in that store he's running? ÊAll that stuff
>> >> >> >he sells came from other businesses, much bigger businesses, the
>> >> >> >25% of businesses that really run the engine of the economy,
>> >> >> >without which the other 75% would have nothing to sell.
>>
>> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it
>> >> >> would magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on
>> >> >> its lonesome?
>>
>> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel?  No.  Without those
>> >> >things, you'd have no job.  In order for your end of the 75% of small
>> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>> >> >can make that happen for you.
>>
>> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> >> shit?  And did you grow your own food to produce that shit?  If not,
>> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
>> >> along with that.
>>
>> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> >> consider small businesses.
>>
>> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make?  That we need
>> >> large businesses?  I'm not going to argue that.  You started off by
>> >> saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
>> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
>> >> false.
>>
>> > Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
>> > that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>>
>> You really don't see that a person who buys lumber and steel and a near-
>> infinity of other products and assembles them into a structure hasn't
>> made those same raw materials into something of more value?
>
>What he does with it can't be done at all if someone didn't create the
>raw material for him to play with in the first place. There's a
>difference between actually creating the raw material, largely the
>domain of big business, and then doing whatever you want with it,
>largely the domain of small business. But the raw material still
>needs to be created first, and small businesses do not in any
>significant number create raw material.

Seriously, what is the point of your discussion here? Are you saying
that small businesses are useless and big businesses are all we need?

I've been so caught up in the ridiculously short sightedness of your
comments to actually understand what you're even trying to say.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-16 20:47:13 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 3:37 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:18:44 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 16, 7:53Êam, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800,wywrote:
> >> > On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs,
> >> >> >> >> aren't monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil"
> >> >> >> >> and justify any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people.
> >> >> >> >> ¾Individuals who have created something out of nothing, with
> >> >> >> >> their own capital, which amog other things, provides livelihood
> >> >> >> >> for its employees.
>
> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their
> >> >> >> >business. Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in
> >> >> >> >order to have a business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner
> >> >> >> >grocery made anything in that store he's running? æAll that stuff
> >> >> >> >he sells came from other businesses, much bigger businesses, the
> >> >> >> >25% of businesses that really run the engine of the economy,
> >> >> >> >without which the other 75% would have nothing to sell.
>
> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it
> >> >> >> would magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on
> >> >> >> its lonesome?
>
> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> >> >> along with that.
>
> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> >> >> consider small businesses.
>
> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we need
> >> >> large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off by
> >> >> saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> >> >> false.
>
> >> > Well, of course you're reselling the products. ÊYou're not keeping all
> >> > that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> >> You really don't see that a person who buys lumber and steel and a near-
> >> infinity of other products and assembles them into a structure hasn't
> >> made those same raw materials into something of more value?
>
> >What he does with it can't be done at all if someone didn't create the
> >raw material for him to play with in the first place.  There's a
> >difference between actually creating the raw material, largely the
> >domain of big business, and then doing whatever you want with it,
> >largely the domain of small business.  But the raw material still
> >needs to be created first, and small businesses do not in any
> >significant number create raw material.
>
> Seriously, what is the point of your discussion here?  Are you saying
> that small businesses are useless and big businesses are all we need?

Somebody kickstarted all this by saying that small business owners
have created something out of nothing with their own capital and I
said that they created not much more than just a name for their small
business. I might also add that often it's not even their own
capital, it's the bank's or some other lender's capital. If a small
business owner is going to create something out of nothing in order
for the 75% of businesses that are small to be meaningful in that
sense, it had better be more than just arts and crafts or building
their own computers, both of which incidentally are reliant on big
business for supplies and parts in order to create all those arts and
crafts and build those homemade computers.

>
> I've been so caught up in the ridiculously short sightedness of your
> comments to actually understand what you're even trying to say.

Yeah, I guess now you know why you get so addicted to me.
KK
2010-02-16 20:58:08 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:47:13 -0800, wy wrote:

>> >number create raw material.
>>
>> Seriously, what is the point of your discussion here?  Are you saying
>> that small businesses are useless and big businesses are all we need?
>
> Somebody kickstarted all this by saying that small business owners have
> created something out of nothing with their own capital and I said that
> they created not much more than just a name for their small business.

Fuckhead,

Even if your retarded assertion that small businesses buy materials from
bigger business were always true, it's still a fact that they add value
and produce something more valuable than its raw components.

You're telling me with a stright face that Breitling doesn't do anything
but put their name on a piece of gold and steel? That Ducati doesn't add
value to the metal they make their motorcycles from? That a violin is no
more than lumber with some logo on it?

To go back to the grocer example you stupidly ridiculed: do you really
think that that grocer hasn't added value in convenience, packaging,
comparison, availability, and assistance for the goods he sells compared
to the pallet-sized containers of goods he purchases?

Next time you want to go shopping, try to buy one chicken from a Tyson
farm, one bunch of bananas from Dole, and a pound of sugar from the
Domino factory.

Oh, and go buy those things at 10PM on a Sunday night. Try to have them
delivered. And pay for them with a debit card, and use a coupon. And
ask at the factory how to cookthe chicken.
wy
2010-02-17 00:39:38 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 3:58 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:47:13 -0800, wy wrote:
> >> >number create raw material.
>
> >> Seriously, what is the point of your discussion here?  Are you saying
> >> that small businesses are useless and big businesses are all we need?
>
> > Somebody kickstarted all this by saying that small business owners have
> > created something out of nothing with their own capital and I said that
> > they created not much more than just a name for their small business.
>
> Fuckhead,

Prickface,

>
> Even if your retarded assertion that small businesses buy materials from
> bigger business were always true,  it's still a fact that they add value
> and produce something more valuable than its raw components.

Not talking about value at all. Talking simply about creation of raw
materials and supplying them. What happens with the materials once
they're bought by small business is out of everyone's hands. The fact
of the matter is that small business needed to buy the materials from
big business, if they can't produce it themselves, which in 99% of
cases they can't because they're, well, small. You know?


>
> You're telling me with a stright face that Breitling doesn't do anything
> but put their name on a piece of gold and steel?  That Ducati doesn't add
> value to the metal they make their motorcycles from?  That a violin is no
> more than lumber with some logo on it?
>
> To go back to the grocer example you stupidly ridiculed: do you really
> think that that grocer hasn't added value in convenience, packaging,
> comparison, availability, and assistance for the goods he sells compared
> to the pallet-sized containers of goods he purchases?
>
> Next time you want to go shopping, try to buy one chicken from a Tyson
> farm, one bunch of bananas from Dole, and a pound of sugar from the
> Domino factory.
>
> Oh, and go buy those things at 10PM on a Sunday night.  Try to have them
> delivered.  And pay for them with a debit card, and use a coupon.  And
> ask at the factory how to cookthe chicken.

Maniacal unfocused ramblings, blah-blah-blah.
KK
2010-02-17 18:05:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:39:38 -0800, wy wrote:


>> Even if your retarded assertion that small businesses buy materials
>> from bigger business were always true,  it's still a fact that they
>> add value and produce something more valuable than its raw components.

> Not talking about value at all.

Well, what the fuck *are* you talking about? You jumped in to this
thread with the well-informed "Why are you so concerned about businesses"
and claimed stupidly that business can't give to one person without
taking from another. Then, you claim that businesses, especially small
businesses, "have created nothing but a name".

That's fucking ignorant, and that point is *exactly* talking about
creating or adding value. Value added to raw materials is what pays
salaries.



> Talking simply about creation of raw
> materials and supplying them. What happens with the materials once
> they're bought by small business is out of everyone's hands. The fact
> of the matter is that small business needed to buy the materials
> from big business, if they can't produce it themselves, which in 99%
> of cases they can't because they're, well, small. You know?

And you accuse *me* of "maniacal unfocused ramblings"?

You're either a troll or too stupid to participate. Or both.


>> You're telling me with a stright face that Breitling doesn't do
>> anything but put their name on a piece of gold and steel?  That Ducati
>> doesn't add value to the metal they make their motorcycles from?  That
>> a violin is no more than lumber with some logo on it?
>>
>> To go back to the grocer example you stupidly ridiculed: do you really
>> think that that grocer hasn't added value in convenience, packaging,
>> comparison, availability, and assistance for the goods he sells
>> compared to the pallet-sized containers of goods he purchases?
>
>> Next time you want to go shopping, try to buy one chicken from a Tyson
>> farm, one bunch of bananas from Dole, and a pound of sugar from the
>> Domino factory.
>
>> Oh, and go buy those things at 10PM on a Sunday night.  Try to have
them
>> delivered.  And pay for them with a debit card, and use a coupon.  And
>> ask at the factory how to cookthe chicken.

> Maniacal unfocused ramblings, blah-blah-blah.
wy
2010-02-17 20:23:10 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 17, 1:05 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:39:38 -0800,wywrote:
> >> Even if your retarded assertion that small businesses buy materials
> >> from bigger business were always true,  it's still a fact that they
> >> add value and produce something more valuable than its raw components.
> > Not talking about value at all.  
>
> Well, what the fuck *are* you talking about?  You jumped in to this
> thread with the well-informed "Why are you so concerned about businesses"
> and claimed stupidly that business can't give to one person without
> taking from another.  Then, you claim that businesses, especially small
> businesses, "have created nothing but a name".
>
> That's fucking ignorant, and that point is *exactly* talking about
> creating or adding value.  Value added to raw materials is what pays
> salaries.

I can't help you if you can't follow it. Sorry.


>
> > Talking simply about creation of raw
> > materials and supplying them.  What happens with the materials once
> > they're bought by small business is out of everyone's hands.  The fact
> > of the matter is that small business needed to buy the materials
> > from big business, if they can't produce it themselves, which in 99%
> > of cases they can't because they're, well, small.  You know?
>
> And you accuse *me* of "maniacal unfocused ramblings"?
>
> You're either a troll or too stupid to participate.  Or both.  

Sorry.


> >> You're telling me with a stright face that Breitling doesn't do
> >> anything but put their name on a piece of gold and steel?  That Ducati
> >> doesn't add value to the metal they make their motorcycles from?  That
> >> a violin is no more than lumber with some logo on it?
>
> >> To go back to the grocer example you stupidly ridiculed: do you really
> >> think that that grocer hasn't added value in convenience, packaging,
> >> comparison, availability, and assistance for the goods he sells
> >> compared to the pallet-sized containers of goods he purchases?
>
> >> Next time you want to go shopping, try to buy one chicken from a Tyson
> >> farm, one bunch of bananas from Dole, and a pound of sugar from the
> >> Domino factory.
>
> >> Oh, and go buy those things at 10PM on a Sunday night.  Try to have
> them
> >> delivered.  And pay for them with a debit card, and use a coupon.  And
> >> ask at the factory how to cookthe chicken.
> > Maniacal unfocused ramblings, blah-blah-blah.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-16 21:00:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:47:13 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 16, 3:37 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:18:44 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 16, 7:53Êam, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800,wywrote:
>> >> > On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs,
>> >> >> >> >> aren't monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil"
>> >> >> >> >> and justify any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people.
>> >> >> >> >> ¾Individuals who have created something out of nothing, with
>> >> >> >> >> their own capital, which amog other things, provides livelihood
>> >> >> >> >> for its employees.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their
>> >> >> >> >business. Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in
>> >> >> >> >order to have a business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner
>> >> >> >> >grocery made anything in that store he's running? æAll that stuff
>> >> >> >> >he sells came from other businesses, much bigger businesses, the
>> >> >> >> >25% of businesses that really run the engine of the economy,
>> >> >> >> >without which the other 75% would have nothing to sell.
>>
>> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it
>> >> >> >> would magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on
>> >> >> >> its lonesome?
>>
>> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
>> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
>> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>>
>> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
>> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
>> >> >> along with that.
>>
>> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> >> >> consider small businesses.
>>
>> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we need
>> >> >> large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off by
>> >> >> saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
>> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
>> >> >> false.
>>
>> >> > Well, of course you're reselling the products. ÊYou're not keeping all
>> >> > that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>>
>> >> You really don't see that a person who buys lumber and steel and a near-
>> >> infinity of other products and assembles them into a structure hasn't
>> >> made those same raw materials into something of more value?
>>
>> >What he does with it can't be done at all if someone didn't create the
>> >raw material for him to play with in the first place.  There's a
>> >difference between actually creating the raw material, largely the
>> >domain of big business, and then doing whatever you want with it,
>> >largely the domain of small business.  But the raw material still
>> >needs to be created first, and small businesses do not in any
>> >significant number create raw material.
>>
>> Seriously, what is the point of your discussion here?  Are you saying
>> that small businesses are useless and big businesses are all we need?
>
>Somebody kickstarted all this by saying that small business owners
>have created something out of nothing with their own capital and I
>said that they created not much more than just a name for their small
>business. I might also add that often it's not even their own
>capital, it's the bank's or some other lender's capital. If a small
>business owner is going to create something out of nothing in order
>for the 75% of businesses that are small to be meaningful in that
>sense, it had better be more than just arts and crafts or building
>their own computers, both of which incidentally are reliant on big
>business for supplies and parts in order to create all those arts and
>crafts and build those homemade computers.

You mean like something out of sticks and stones and mostly American
made components that suddenly turn into a building?

>
>>
>> I've been so caught up in the ridiculously short sightedness of your
>> comments to actually understand what you're even trying to say.
>
>Yeah, I guess now you know why you get so addicted to me.

Don't compliment yourself.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
JaxKayaker
2010-02-17 04:56:45 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 3:47 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 3:37 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:18:44 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > >On Feb 16, 7:53Êam, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800,wywrote:
> > >> > On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs,
> > >> >> >> >> aren't monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil"
> > >> >> >> >> and justify any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people.
> > >> >> >> >> ¾Individuals who have created something out of nothing, with
> > >> >> >> >> their own capital, which amog other things, provides livelihood
> > >> >> >> >> for its employees.
>
> > >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their
> > >> >> >> >business. Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in
> > >> >> >> >order to have a business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner
> > >> >> >> >grocery made anything in that store he's running? æAll that stuff
> > >> >> >> >he sells came from other businesses, much bigger businesses, the
> > >> >> >> >25% of businesses that really run the engine of the economy,
> > >> >> >> >without which the other 75% would have nothing to sell.
>
> > >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> > >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it
> > >> >> >> would magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on
> > >> >> >> its lonesome?
>
> > >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> > >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> > >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> > >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> > >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> > >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> > >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> > >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> > >> >> along with that.
>
> > >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> > >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> > >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> > >> >> consider small businesses.
>
> > >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we need
> > >> >> large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off by
> > >> >> saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> > >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> > >> >> false.
>
> > >> > Well, of course you're reselling the products. ÊYou're not keeping all
> > >> > that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> > >> You really don't see that a person who buys lumber and steel and a near-
> > >> infinity of other products and assembles them into a structure hasn't
> > >> made those same raw materials into something of more value?
>
> > >What he does with it can't be done at all if someone didn't create the
> > >raw material for him to play with in the first place.  There's a
> > >difference between actually creating the raw material, largely the
> > >domain of big business, and then doing whatever you want with it,
> > >largely the domain of small business.  But the raw material still
> > >needs to be created first, and small businesses do not in any
> > >significant number create raw material.
>
> > Seriously, what is the point of your discussion here?  Are you saying
> > that small businesses are useless and big businesses are all we need?
>
> Somebody kickstarted all this by saying that small business owners
> have created something out of nothing with their own capital and I
> said that they created not much more than just a name for their small
> business.  I might also add that often it's not even their own
> capital, it's the bank's or some other lender's capital.  If a small
> business owner is going to create something out of nothing in order
> for the 75% of businesses that are small to be meaningful in that
> sense, it had better be more than just arts and crafts or building
> their own computers, both of which incidentally are reliant on big
> business for supplies and parts in order to create all those arts and
> crafts and build those homemade computers.
>
>
>
> > I've been so caught up in the ridiculously short sightedness of your
> > comments to actually understand what you're even trying to say.
>
> Yeah, I guess now you know why you get so addicted to me.

You are fuckin idiot! There enough of the name calling but I had
to get it out of my system.
Just because a small business does not create the material that they
do their business with
ie Computer repair, this somehow make them "unworthy" in your
opinion? The owner of the
Computer repair shop that employs 10 people that puts food on the
table, send their kids to school,
buys their cars and home with the pay that he provides them would
hardly call his business
meaningless yet you seem to have no problem with that. The Arts and
Crafts dealer that supplies
stuff for the local artists and schools does not think his business is
meaningless. The clothing store
that sells the clothes that you wear does not consider themselves
meaningless. Big Business would not
exist without these meaningless small businesses. These are the people
that make the wheels of America turn.

You are a moron...oops just slipped out!
wy
2010-02-17 17:02:05 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 11:56 pm, JaxKayaker <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 3:47 pm,wy<***@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 3:37 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:18:44 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > >On Feb 16, 7:53Êam, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800,wywrote:
> > > >> > On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs,
> > > >> >> >> >> aren't monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil"
> > > >> >> >> >> and justify any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people.
> > > >> >> >> >> ¾Individuals who have created something out of nothing, with
> > > >> >> >> >> their own capital, which amog other things, provides livelihood
> > > >> >> >> >> for its employees.
>
> > > >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their
> > > >> >> >> >business. Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in
> > > >> >> >> >order to have a business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner
> > > >> >> >> >grocery made anything in that store he's running? æAll that stuff
> > > >> >> >> >he sells came from other businesses, much bigger businesses, the
> > > >> >> >> >25% of businesses that really run the engine of the economy,
> > > >> >> >> >without which the other 75% would have nothing to sell.
>
> > > >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> > > >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it
> > > >> >> >> would magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on
> > > >> >> >> its lonesome?
>
> > > >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> > > >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> > > >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> > > >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> > > >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> > > >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> > > >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> > > >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> > > >> >> along with that.
>
> > > >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> > > >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> > > >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> > > >> >> consider small businesses.
>
> > > >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we need
> > > >> >> large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off by
> > > >> >> saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> > > >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> > > >> >> false.
>
> > > >> > Well, of course you're reselling the products. ÊYou're not keeping all
> > > >> > that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> > > >> You really don't see that a person who buys lumber and steel and a near-
> > > >> infinity of other products and assembles them into a structure hasn't
> > > >> made those same raw materials into something of more value?
>
> > > >What he does with it can't be done at all if someone didn't create the
> > > >raw material for him to play with in the first place.  There's a
> > > >difference between actually creating the raw material, largely the
> > > >domain of big business, and then doing whatever you want with it,
> > > >largely the domain of small business.  But the raw material still
> > > >needs to be created first, and small businesses do not in any
> > > >significant number create raw material.
>
> > > Seriously, what is the point of your discussion here?  Are you saying
> > > that small businesses are useless and big businesses are all we need?
>
> > Somebody kickstarted all this by saying that small business owners
> > have created something out of nothing with their own capital and I
> > said that they created not much more than just a name for their small
> > business.  I might also add that often it's not even their own
> > capital, it's the bank's or some other lender's capital.  If a small
> > business owner is going to create something out of nothing in order
> > for the 75% of businesses that are small to be meaningful in that
> > sense, it had better be more than just arts and crafts or building
> > their own computers, both of which incidentally are reliant on big
> > business for supplies and parts in order to create all those arts and
> > crafts and build those homemade computers.
>
> > > I've been so caught up in the ridiculously short sightedness of your
> > > comments to actually understand what you're even trying to say.
>
> > Yeah, I guess now you know why you get so addicted to me.
>
>     You are fuckin idiot! There enough of the name calling but I had
> to get it out of my system.
> Just because a small business does not create the material that they
> do their business with
> ie Computer repair, this somehow make them "unworthy" in your
> opinion?  The owner of the
> Computer repair shop that employs 10 people that puts food on the
> table, send their kids to school,
> buys their cars  and home with the pay that he provides them would
> hardly call his business
> meaningless yet you seem to have no problem with that. The Arts and
> Crafts dealer that supplies
> stuff for the local artists and schools does not think his business is
> meaningless. The clothing store
> that sells the clothes that you wear  does not consider themselves
> meaningless.  Big Business would not
> exist without these meaningless small businesses. These are the people
> that make the wheels of America turn.
>
> You are a moron...oops just slipped out!

You still haven't disproven that without big business none of the
above would really be possible. Look, it's a two-way street. Big
business needs small business to survive and vice versa, but it's
gotta start somewhere. Small business isn't all of a sudden going to
get out there and find massive amounts of steel to build cars or
bridges, they don't have the means, financial and otherwise, to do
that. People making the wheels of America turn can't happen without
the big guys getting the stuff first that's needed for the little guys
to do something with it. Simple common sense.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-17 17:33:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:02:05 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 16, 11:56 pm, JaxKayaker <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 3:47 pm,wy<***@myself.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 16, 3:37 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:18:44 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> > > >On Feb 16, 7:53Êam, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>> > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800,wywrote:
>> > > >> > On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> > > >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> > > >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> > > >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> > > >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs,
>> > > >> >> >> >> aren't monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil"
>> > > >> >> >> >> and justify any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people.
>> > > >> >> >> >> ¾Individuals who have created something out of nothing, with
>> > > >> >> >> >> their own capital, which amog other things, provides livelihood
>> > > >> >> >> >> for its employees.
>>
>> > > >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their
>> > > >> >> >> >business. Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in
>> > > >> >> >> >order to have a business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner
>> > > >> >> >> >grocery made anything in that store he's running? æAll that stuff
>> > > >> >> >> >he sells came from other businesses, much bigger businesses, the
>> > > >> >> >> >25% of businesses that really run the engine of the economy,
>> > > >> >> >> >without which the other 75% would have nothing to sell.
>>
>> > > >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> > > >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it
>> > > >> >> >> would magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on
>> > > >> >> >> its lonesome?
>>
>> > > >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> > > >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
>> > > >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
>> > > >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>> > > >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>>
>> > > >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> > > >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
>> > > >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
>> > > >> >> along with that.
>>
>> > > >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> > > >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> > > >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> > > >> >> consider small businesses.
>>
>> > > >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we need
>> > > >> >> large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off by
>> > > >> >> saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
>> > > >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
>> > > >> >> false.
>>
>> > > >> > Well, of course you're reselling the products. ÊYou're not keeping all
>> > > >> > that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>>
>> > > >> You really don't see that a person who buys lumber and steel and a near-
>> > > >> infinity of other products and assembles them into a structure hasn't
>> > > >> made those same raw materials into something of more value?
>>
>> > > >What he does with it can't be done at all if someone didn't create the
>> > > >raw material for him to play with in the first place.  There's a
>> > > >difference between actually creating the raw material, largely the
>> > > >domain of big business, and then doing whatever you want with it,
>> > > >largely the domain of small business.  But the raw material still
>> > > >needs to be created first, and small businesses do not in any
>> > > >significant number create raw material.
>>
>> > > Seriously, what is the point of your discussion here?  Are you saying
>> > > that small businesses are useless and big businesses are all we need?
>>
>> > Somebody kickstarted all this by saying that small business owners
>> > have created something out of nothing with their own capital and I
>> > said that they created not much more than just a name for their small
>> > business.  I might also add that often it's not even their own
>> > capital, it's the bank's or some other lender's capital.  If a small
>> > business owner is going to create something out of nothing in order
>> > for the 75% of businesses that are small to be meaningful in that
>> > sense, it had better be more than just arts and crafts or building
>> > their own computers, both of which incidentally are reliant on big
>> > business for supplies and parts in order to create all those arts and
>> > crafts and build those homemade computers.
>>
>> > > I've been so caught up in the ridiculously short sightedness of your
>> > > comments to actually understand what you're even trying to say.
>>
>> > Yeah, I guess now you know why you get so addicted to me.
>>
>>     You are fuckin idiot! There enough of the name calling but I had
>> to get it out of my system.
>> Just because a small business does not create the material that they
>> do their business with
>> ie Computer repair, this somehow make them "unworthy" in your
>> opinion?  The owner of the
>> Computer repair shop that employs 10 people that puts food on the
>> table, send their kids to school,
>> buys their cars  and home with the pay that he provides them would
>> hardly call his business
>> meaningless yet you seem to have no problem with that. The Arts and
>> Crafts dealer that supplies
>> stuff for the local artists and schools does not think his business is
>> meaningless. The clothing store
>> that sells the clothes that you wear  does not consider themselves
>> meaningless.  Big Business would not
>> exist without these meaningless small businesses. These are the people
>> that make the wheels of America turn.
>>
>> You are a moron...oops just slipped out!
>
>You still haven't disproven that without big business none of the
>above would really be possible. Look, it's a two-way street. Big
>business needs small business to survive and vice versa, but it's
>gotta start somewhere. Small business isn't all of a sudden going to
>get out there and find massive amounts of steel to build cars or
>bridges, they don't have the means, financial and otherwise, to do
>that. People making the wheels of America turn can't happen without
>the big guys getting the stuff first that's needed for the little guys
>to do something with it. Simple common sense.

Ok, so let's give stimulus money to banks that in turn give it to big
businesses and see how that works out for us. Also a bunch of big tax
breaks. Maybe you're on to something.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-17 20:21:45 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 17, 12:33 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:02:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 16, 11:56 pm, JaxKayaker <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 16, 3:47 pm,wy<***@myself.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 16, 3:37 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:18:44 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> > > >On Feb 16, 7:53Êam, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> >> > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800,wywrote:
> >> > > >> > On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> > > >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> > > >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs,
> >> > > >> >> >> >> aren't monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil"
> >> > > >> >> >> >> and justify any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people.
> >> > > >> >> >> >> ¾Individuals who have created something out of nothing, with
> >> > > >> >> >> >> their own capital, which amog other things, provides livelihood
> >> > > >> >> >> >> for its employees.
>
> >> > > >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their
> >> > > >> >> >> >business. Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in
> >> > > >> >> >> >order to have a business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner
> >> > > >> >> >> >grocery made anything in that store he's running? æAll that stuff
> >> > > >> >> >> >he sells came from other businesses, much bigger businesses, the
> >> > > >> >> >> >25% of businesses that really run the engine of the economy,
> >> > > >> >> >> >without which the other 75% would have nothing to sell.
>
> >> > > >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> >> > > >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it
> >> > > >> >> >> would magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on
> >> > > >> >> >> its lonesome?
>
> >> > > >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> >> > > >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> >> > > >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> >> > > >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> >> > > >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> >> > > >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> >> > > >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> >> > > >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> >> > > >> >> along with that.
>
> >> > > >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> >> > > >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> >> > > >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> >> > > >> >> consider small businesses.
>
> >> > > >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we need
> >> > > >> >> large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off by
> >> > > >> >> saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> >> > > >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> >> > > >> >> false.
>
> >> > > >> > Well, of course you're reselling the products. ÊYou're not keeping all
> >> > > >> > that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> >> > > >> You really don't see that a person who buys lumber and steel and a near-
> >> > > >> infinity of other products and assembles them into a structure hasn't
> >> > > >> made those same raw materials into something of more value?
>
> >> > > >What he does with it can't be done at all if someone didn't create the
> >> > > >raw material for him to play with in the first place.  There's a
> >> > > >difference between actually creating the raw material, largely the
> >> > > >domain of big business, and then doing whatever you want with it,
> >> > > >largely the domain of small business.  But the raw material still
> >> > > >needs to be created first, and small businesses do not in any
> >> > > >significant number create raw material.
>
> >> > > Seriously, what is the point of your discussion here?  Are you saying
> >> > > that small businesses are useless and big businesses are all we need?
>
> >> > Somebody kickstarted all this by saying that small business owners
> >> > have created something out of nothing with their own capital and I
> >> > said that they created not much more than just a name for their small
> >> > business.  I might also add that often it's not even their own
> >> > capital, it's the bank's or some other lender's capital.  If a small
> >> > business owner is going to create something out of nothing in order
> >> > for the 75% of businesses that are small to be meaningful in that
> >> > sense, it had better be more than just arts and crafts or building
> >> > their own computers, both of which incidentally are reliant on big
> >> > business for supplies and parts in order to create all those arts and
> >> > crafts and build those homemade computers.
>
> >> > > I've been so caught up in the ridiculously short sightedness of your
> >> > > comments to actually understand what you're even trying to say.
>
> >> > Yeah, I guess now you know why you get so addicted to me.
>
> >>     You are fuckin idiot! There enough of the name calling but I had
> >> to get it out of my system.
> >> Just because a small business does not create the material that they
> >> do their business with
> >> ie Computer repair, this somehow make them "unworthy" in your
> >> opinion?  The owner of the
> >> Computer repair shop that employs 10 people that puts food on the
> >> table, send their kids to school,
> >> buys their cars  and home with the pay that he provides them would
> >> hardly call his business
> >> meaningless yet you seem to have no problem with that. The Arts and
> >> Crafts dealer that supplies
> >> stuff for the local artists and schools does not think his business is
> >> meaningless. The clothing store
> >> that sells the clothes that you wear  does not consider themselves
> >> meaningless.  Big Business would not
> >> exist without these meaningless small businesses. These are the people
> >> that make the wheels of America turn.
>
> >> You are a moron...oops just slipped out!
>
> >You still haven't disproven that without big business none of the
> >above would really be possible.  Look, it's a two-way street.  Big
> >business needs small business to survive and vice versa, but it's
> >gotta start somewhere.  Small business isn't all of a sudden going to
> >get out there and find massive amounts of steel to build cars or
> >bridges, they don't have the means, financial and otherwise, to do
> >that.  People making the wheels of America turn can't happen without
> >the big guys getting the stuff first that's needed for the little guys
> >to do something with it.  Simple common sense.
>
> Ok, so let's give stimulus money to banks that in turn give it to big
> businesses and see how that works out for us.  Also a bunch of big tax
> breaks.  Maybe you're on to something.

I never thought giving stimulus money to banks and businesses was a
good idea. Preferably, I would've loved to see each American get a
cut of that stimulus money instead, because collectively their
spending of it would've done more to stimulate the economy than the
banks and businesses have been able to do, and probably do it in
quicker time. Just think about it. If the government took $1
trillion and divided it up among each and every working American,
about 125 million of them, could be a bit more, but we'll say that for
now, that would mean $8,000 right into your pocket, and if you've got
a wife that works also, $8,000 into hers also. Now seriously, with
$16,000 per working family of two wage earners, wouldn't that fix the
economy real quick with that kind of money to spend on needed things
and even to catch up on bills? And if businesses and banks fail, so
what? Each employee kicked out of a job because of that would still
get $8,000 from that stimulus money, in addition to unemployment
insurance. I don't know what economists are thinking when they think
about stimulus money and applying it to businesses and banks only,
unless the problem that needed fixing involved the whole world's
economy as a result, not just the U.S. economy, which is quite likely
the case. But wouldn't the rest of the world do just fine anyway so
long as Americans had money to spend and the government gave them that
money to spend? And even if you wanted the government to save money
in the process, all they would have to do is give out $500 billion,
instead of $1 trillion, to people and that would still add up to
$4,000 in your pocket, $8,000 in both your and your's wife's
pockets.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-18 13:52:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:21:45 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 17, 12:33 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:02:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 16, 11:56 pm, JaxKayaker <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 16, 3:47 pm,wy<***@myself.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 16, 3:37 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:18:44 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> > > >On Feb 16, 7:53Êam, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>> >> > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800,wywrote:
>> >> > > >> > On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> > > >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> > > >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs,
>> >> > > >> >> >> >> aren't monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil"
>> >> > > >> >> >> >> and justify any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people.
>> >> > > >> >> >> >> ¾Individuals who have created something out of nothing, with
>> >> > > >> >> >> >> their own capital, which amog other things, provides livelihood
>> >> > > >> >> >> >> for its employees.
>>
>> >> > > >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their
>> >> > > >> >> >> >business. Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in
>> >> > > >> >> >> >order to have a business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner
>> >> > > >> >> >> >grocery made anything in that store he's running? æAll that stuff
>> >> > > >> >> >> >he sells came from other businesses, much bigger businesses, the
>> >> > > >> >> >> >25% of businesses that really run the engine of the economy,
>> >> > > >> >> >> >without which the other 75% would have nothing to sell.
>>
>> >> > > >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> >> > > >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it
>> >> > > >> >> >> would magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on
>> >> > > >> >> >> its lonesome?
>>
>> >> > > >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> >> > > >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
>> >> > > >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
>> >> > > >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>> >> > > >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>>
>> >> > > >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> >> > > >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
>> >> > > >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
>> >> > > >> >> along with that.
>>
>> >> > > >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> >> > > >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> >> > > >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> >> > > >> >> consider small businesses.
>>
>> >> > > >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we need
>> >> > > >> >> large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off by
>> >> > > >> >> saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
>> >> > > >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
>> >> > > >> >> false.
>>
>> >> > > >> > Well, of course you're reselling the products. ÊYou're not keeping all
>> >> > > >> > that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>>
>> >> > > >> You really don't see that a person who buys lumber and steel and a near-
>> >> > > >> infinity of other products and assembles them into a structure hasn't
>> >> > > >> made those same raw materials into something of more value?
>>
>> >> > > >What he does with it can't be done at all if someone didn't create the
>> >> > > >raw material for him to play with in the first place.  There's a
>> >> > > >difference between actually creating the raw material, largely the
>> >> > > >domain of big business, and then doing whatever you want with it,
>> >> > > >largely the domain of small business.  But the raw material still
>> >> > > >needs to be created first, and small businesses do not in any
>> >> > > >significant number create raw material.
>>
>> >> > > Seriously, what is the point of your discussion here?  Are you saying
>> >> > > that small businesses are useless and big businesses are all we need?
>>
>> >> > Somebody kickstarted all this by saying that small business owners
>> >> > have created something out of nothing with their own capital and I
>> >> > said that they created not much more than just a name for their small
>> >> > business.  I might also add that often it's not even their own
>> >> > capital, it's the bank's or some other lender's capital.  If a small
>> >> > business owner is going to create something out of nothing in order
>> >> > for the 75% of businesses that are small to be meaningful in that
>> >> > sense, it had better be more than just arts and crafts or building
>> >> > their own computers, both of which incidentally are reliant on big
>> >> > business for supplies and parts in order to create all those arts and
>> >> > crafts and build those homemade computers.
>>
>> >> > > I've been so caught up in the ridiculously short sightedness of your
>> >> > > comments to actually understand what you're even trying to say.
>>
>> >> > Yeah, I guess now you know why you get so addicted to me.
>>
>> >>     You are fuckin idiot! There enough of the name calling but I had
>> >> to get it out of my system.
>> >> Just because a small business does not create the material that they
>> >> do their business with
>> >> ie Computer repair, this somehow make them "unworthy" in your
>> >> opinion?  The owner of the
>> >> Computer repair shop that employs 10 people that puts food on the
>> >> table, send their kids to school,
>> >> buys their cars  and home with the pay that he provides them would
>> >> hardly call his business
>> >> meaningless yet you seem to have no problem with that. The Arts and
>> >> Crafts dealer that supplies
>> >> stuff for the local artists and schools does not think his business is
>> >> meaningless. The clothing store
>> >> that sells the clothes that you wear  does not consider themselves
>> >> meaningless.  Big Business would not
>> >> exist without these meaningless small businesses. These are the people
>> >> that make the wheels of America turn.
>>
>> >> You are a moron...oops just slipped out!
>>
>> >You still haven't disproven that without big business none of the
>> >above would really be possible.  Look, it's a two-way street.  Big
>> >business needs small business to survive and vice versa, but it's
>> >gotta start somewhere.  Small business isn't all of a sudden going to
>> >get out there and find massive amounts of steel to build cars or
>> >bridges, they don't have the means, financial and otherwise, to do
>> >that.  People making the wheels of America turn can't happen without
>> >the big guys getting the stuff first that's needed for the little guys
>> >to do something with it.  Simple common sense.
>>
>> Ok, so let's give stimulus money to banks that in turn give it to big
>> businesses and see how that works out for us.  Also a bunch of big tax
>> breaks.  Maybe you're on to something.
>
>I never thought giving stimulus money to banks and businesses was a
>good idea. Preferably, I would've loved to see each American get a
>cut of that stimulus money instead, because collectively their
>spending of it would've done more to stimulate the economy than the
>banks and businesses have been able to do, and probably do it in
>quicker time. Just think about it. If the government took $1
>trillion and divided it up among each and every working American,
>about 125 million of them, could be a bit more, but we'll say that for
>now, that would mean $8,000 right into your pocket, and if you've got
>a wife that works also, $8,000 into hers also. Now seriously, with
>$16,000 per working family of two wage earners, wouldn't that fix the
>economy real quick with that kind of money to spend on needed things
>and even to catch up on bills? And if businesses and banks fail, so
>what? Each employee kicked out of a job because of that would still
>get $8,000 from that stimulus money, in addition to unemployment
>insurance. I don't know what economists are thinking when they think
>about stimulus money and applying it to businesses and banks only,
>unless the problem that needed fixing involved the whole world's
>economy as a result, not just the U.S. economy, which is quite likely
>the case. But wouldn't the rest of the world do just fine anyway so
>long as Americans had money to spend and the government gave them that
>money to spend? And even if you wanted the government to save money
>in the process, all they would have to do is give out $500 billion,
>instead of $1 trillion, to people and that would still add up to
>$4,000 in your pocket, $8,000 in both your and your's wife's
>pockets.
>
>

That's retarded. It would mean that taxpayers would essentially be
taking money out of their pocket and giving it to people that don't
pay taxes. A better idea would be to cut taxes, that way productive
wage earners would be able to keep their money and spend it instead of
funding people that are already getting unemployment or welfare.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-18 16:41:09 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 18, 8:52 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:21:45 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 17, 12:33 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:02:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >On Feb 16, 11:56 pm, JaxKayaker <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Feb 16, 3:47 pm,wy<***@myself.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Feb 16, 3:37 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:18:44 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> > > >On Feb 16, 7:53Êam, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800,wywrote:
> >> >> > > >> > On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> > > >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs,
> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> aren't monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil"
> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> and justify any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people.
> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> ¾Individuals who have created something out of nothing, with
> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> their own capital, which amog other things, provides livelihood
> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> for its employees.
>
> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their
> >> >> > > >> >> >> >business. Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in
> >> >> > > >> >> >> >order to have a business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner
> >> >> > > >> >> >> >grocery made anything in that store he's running? æAll that stuff
> >> >> > > >> >> >> >he sells came from other businesses, much bigger businesses, the
> >> >> > > >> >> >> >25% of businesses that really run the engine of the economy,
> >> >> > > >> >> >> >without which the other 75% would have nothing to sell.
>
> >> >> > > >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> >> >> > > >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it
> >> >> > > >> >> >> would magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on
> >> >> > > >> >> >> its lonesome?
>
> >> >> > > >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> >> >> > > >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> >> >> > > >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> >> >> > > >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> >> >> > > >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> >> >> > > >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> >> >> > > >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> >> >> > > >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> >> >> > > >> >> along with that.
>
> >> >> > > >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> >> >> > > >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> >> >> > > >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> >> >> > > >> >> consider small businesses.
>
> >> >> > > >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we need
> >> >> > > >> >> large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off by
> >> >> > > >> >> saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> >> >> > > >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> >> >> > > >> >> false.
>
> >> >> > > >> > Well, of course you're reselling the products. ÊYou're not keeping all
> >> >> > > >> > that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> >> >> > > >> You really don't see that a person who buys lumber and steel and a near-
> >> >> > > >> infinity of other products and assembles them into a structure hasn't
> >> >> > > >> made those same raw materials into something of more value?
>
> >> >> > > >What he does with it can't be done at all if someone didn't create the
> >> >> > > >raw material for him to play with in the first place.  There's a
> >> >> > > >difference between actually creating the raw material, largely the
> >> >> > > >domain of big business, and then doing whatever you want with it,
> >> >> > > >largely the domain of small business.  But the raw material still
> >> >> > > >needs to be created first, and small businesses do not in any
> >> >> > > >significant number create raw material.
>
> >> >> > > Seriously, what is the point of your discussion here?  Are you saying
> >> >> > > that small businesses are useless and big businesses are all we need?
>
> >> >> > Somebody kickstarted all this by saying that small business owners
> >> >> > have created something out of nothing with their own capital and I
> >> >> > said that they created not much more than just a name for their small
> >> >> > business.  I might also add that often it's not even their own
> >> >> > capital, it's the bank's or some other lender's capital.  If a small
> >> >> > business owner is going to create something out of nothing in order
> >> >> > for the 75% of businesses that are small to be meaningful in that
> >> >> > sense, it had better be more than just arts and crafts or building
> >> >> > their own computers, both of which incidentally are reliant on big
> >> >> > business for supplies and parts in order to create all those arts and
> >> >> > crafts and build those homemade computers.
>
> >> >> > > I've been so caught up in the ridiculously short sightedness of your
> >> >> > > comments to actually understand what you're even trying to say.
>
> >> >> > Yeah, I guess now you know why you get so addicted to me.
>
> >> >>     You are fuckin idiot! There enough of the name calling but I had
> >> >> to get it out of my system.
> >> >> Just because a small business does not create the material that they
> >> >> do their business with
> >> >> ie Computer repair, this somehow make them "unworthy" in your
> >> >> opinion?  The owner of the
> >> >> Computer repair shop that employs 10 people that puts food on the
> >> >> table, send their kids to school,
> >> >> buys their cars  and home with the pay that he provides them would
> >> >> hardly call his business
> >> >> meaningless yet you seem to have no problem with that. The Arts and
> >> >> Crafts dealer that supplies
> >> >> stuff for the local artists and schools does not think his business is
> >> >> meaningless. The clothing store
> >> >> that sells the clothes that you wear  does not consider themselves
> >> >> meaningless.  Big Business would not
> >> >> exist without these meaningless small businesses. These are the people
> >> >> that make the wheels of America turn.
>
> >> >> You are a moron...oops just slipped out!
>
> >> >You still haven't disproven that without big business none of the
> >> >above would really be possible.  Look, it's a two-way street.  Big
> >> >business needs small business to survive and vice versa, but it's
> >> >gotta start somewhere.  Small business isn't all of a sudden going to
> >> >get out there and find massive amounts of steel to build cars or
> >> >bridges, they don't have the means, financial and otherwise, to do
> >> >that.  People making the wheels of America turn can't happen without
> >> >the big guys getting the stuff first that's needed for the little guys
> >> >to do something with it.  Simple common sense.
>
> >> Ok, so let's give stimulus money to banks that in turn give it to big
> >> businesses and see how that works out for us.  Also a bunch of big tax
> >> breaks.  Maybe you're on to something.
>
> >I never thought giving stimulus money to banks and businesses was a
> >good idea.  Preferably, I would've loved to see each American get a
> >cut of that stimulus money instead, because collectively their
> >spending of it would've done more to stimulate the economy than the
> >banks and businesses have been able to do, and probably do it in
> >quicker time.  Just think about it.  If the government took $1
> >trillion and divided it up among each and every working American,
> >about 125 million of them, could be a bit more, but we'll say that for
> >now, that would mean $8,000 right into your pocket, and if you've got
> >a wife that works also, $8,000 into hers also.  Now seriously, with
> >$16,000 per working family of two wage earners, wouldn't that fix the
> >economy real quick with that kind of money to spend on needed things
> >and even to catch up on bills?  And if businesses and banks fail, so
> >what?  Each employee kicked out of a job because of that would still
> >get $8,000 from that stimulus money, in addition to unemployment
> >insurance.  I don't know what economists are thinking when they think
> >about stimulus money and applying it to businesses and banks only,
> >unless the problem that needed fixing involved the whole world's
> >economy as a result, not just the U.S. economy, which is quite likely
> >the case.  But wouldn't the rest of the world do just fine anyway so
> >long as Americans had money to spend and the government gave them that
> >money to spend?  And even if you wanted the government to save money
> >in the process, all they would have to do is give out $500 billion,
> >instead of $1 trillion, to people and that would still add up to
> >$4,000 in your pocket, $8,000 in both your and your's wife's
> >pockets.
>
> That's retarded.  It would mean that taxpayers would essentially be
> taking money out of their pocket and giving it to people that don't
> pay taxes.  A better idea would be to cut taxes, that way productive
> wage earners would be able to keep their money and spend it instead of
> funding people that are already getting unemployment or welfare.

You really do have a screw loose, or maybe more than your fair share
of screws loose, in your brain, don't you? Tax cuts are one of the
things that got you in the mess that you're in now, beginning with
Reagan. Every time there was one, they've had to follow it up with
tax hikes to make up for the loss in revenue to cover all the
government programs, 80% of which is social security, medicare,
medicaid and the military, so you ultimately end up not saving
anything and actually paying more. Here, read up on exactly what the
Bush cuts have done for you lately from those who should know:

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

As for taxpayers taking money out of their pocket and giving it to
people that don't pay taxes, so? That's being done now, it's always
been done that way. If it's always been done that way, is being done
and will continue to be done that way, then what's the difference?
It's just a matter of better allocating the money and in this case,
you give it to everyone who can collectively contribute to getting the
economy back on track through their spending of it rather than to
banks that only end up hoarding it, investing it, paying out $100
million bonuses to no one's real benefit and barely using any that's
left over to moving the economy along through loans.

Wake up, man, and smell the common sense. Maybe that Florida sun has
fried your brain's wiring or something, I think you need cooler climes
to be able to think straight.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-18 18:00:29 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:41:09 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>>
>> That's retarded.  It would mean that taxpayers would essentially be
>> taking money out of their pocket and giving it to people that don't
>> pay taxes.  A better idea would be to cut taxes, that way productive
>> wage earners would be able to keep their money and spend it instead of
>> funding people that are already getting unemployment or welfare.
>
>You really do have a screw loose, or maybe more than your fair share
>of screws loose, in your brain, don't you? Tax cuts are one of the
>things that got you in the mess that you're in now, beginning with
>Reagan.

Atta boy, exactly what I wanted to hear you say.

Now explain the difference between taking tax money and handing it to
people and tax cuts.

Think it through.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-18 21:59:52 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 18, 1:00 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:41:09 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
>
>
> >> That's retarded. ÊIt would mean that taxpayers would essentially be
> >> taking money out of their pocket and giving it to people that don't
> >> pay taxes. ÊA better idea would be to cut taxes, that way productive
> >> wage earners would be able to keep their money and spend it instead of
> >> funding people that are already getting unemployment or welfare.
>
> >You really do have a screw loose, or maybe more than your fair share
> >of screws loose, in your brain, don't you?  Tax cuts are one of the
> >things that got you in the mess that you're in now, beginning with
> >Reagan.
>
> Atta boy, exactly what I wanted to hear you say.
>
> Now explain the difference between taking tax money and handing it to
> people and tax cuts.
>
> Think it through.

The difference is that when you hand tax cuts that amount to little
more than a couple of hundred bucks and then the government has to
come back a few years later to increase taxes to not only subtract
that couple of hundred from you, but also add a little more to your
bill, nobody wins but the government.

Now, if you gave everybody $8,000, even in a recession, then
collectively all those individual $8,000, amounting to a trillion,
would be directly funneled into getting the economy back on track in
much less time because, obviously, people are going to spend it,
which, obviously, will have a far more and immediate impact on the
economy than just a piddly $200. And if not spend it, then they'd pay
off or lighten up on some debts so that they can get around to
spending again later on. That way, people get to spend, get what they
want, businesses recover and get to keep their employees, who won't
have to burden taxpayers by having to go on unemployment, and the
government gets increased tax sales revenue much more quickly and for
a more sustained period of time, since not everybody will spend $8,000
the very same week they get it, which makes it all a win-win-win-win
for the average Joe and Jane, businesses, their employees and the IRS.

Giving a trillion to banks and businesses has only proven one thing
with crystal clarity after a year and a half: it doesn't work. It's
not in the interest or nature of banks and businesses to get the
economy going, they're only in it to profit from an economy. The
economy is the people's business, they're the ones that buy and keep
buying each and every hour of each and every day en masse.
Governments need to learn this if they want to stop wasting your
money.
jane
2010-02-18 22:32:52 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 18, 4:59 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 1:00 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:41:09 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > >> That's retarded. ÊIt would mean that taxpayers would essentially be
> > >> taking money out of their pocket and giving it to people that don't
> > >> pay taxes. ÊA better idea would be to cut taxes, that way productive
> > >> wage earners would be able to keep their money and spend it instead of
> > >> funding people that are already getting unemployment or welfare.
>
> > >You really do have a screw loose, or maybe more than your fair share
> > >of screws loose, in your brain, don't you?  Tax cuts are one of the
> > >things that got you in the mess that you're in now, beginning with
> > >Reagan.
>
> > Atta boy, exactly what I wanted to hear you say.
>
> > Now explain the difference between taking tax money and handing it to
> > people and tax cuts.
>
> > Think it through.
>
> The difference is that when you hand tax cuts that amount to little
> more than a couple of hundred bucks and then the government has to
> come back a few years later to increase taxes to not only subtract
> that couple of hundred from you, but also add a little more to your
> bill, nobody wins but the government.
>
> Now, if you gave everybody $8,000, even in a recession, then
> collectively all those individual $8,000, amounting to a trillion,
> would be directly funneled into getting the economy back on track in
> much less time because, obviously, people are going to spend it,
> which, obviously, will have a far more and immediate impact on the
> economy than just a piddly $200.  And if not spend it, then they'd pay
> off or lighten up on some debts so that they can get around to
> spending again later on.  That way, people get to spend, get what they
> want, businesses recover and get to keep their employees, who won't
> have to burden taxpayers by having to go on unemployment, and the
> government gets increased tax sales revenue much more quickly and for
> a more sustained period of time, since not everybody will spend $8,000
> the very same week they get it, which makes it all a win-win-win-win
> for the average Joe and Jane, businesses, their employees and the IRS.
>
> Giving a trillion to banks and businesses has only proven one thing
> with crystal clarity after a year and a half: it doesn't work.  It's
> not in the interest or nature of banks and businesses to get the
> economy going, they're only in it to profit from an economy.  The
> economy is the people's business, they're the ones that buy and keep
> buying each and every hour of each and every day en masse.
> Governments need to learn this if they want to stop wasting your
> money.

Although you and I usually have completely opposing views, this is one
area where you and I are in agreement, especially giving the money to
Joe and Jane :-). When the government gives taxpayer (or borrowed)
money to business, the government determines which businesses are
going to succeed and which ones are going to fail. This has many,
many failings. One of which is that the decisions often are political
rather than economic decisions.

When the consumer gets the money, it is the consumer that decides
which business serve them the best, and the consumer determines which
business will succeed.

However, you and I do have slightly different implementation ideas.
Giving money once again becomes a political rather than an economic
decision. The decision as to who gets the money is determined by the
number of votes that can be bought with the giveaway money. My
implementation would be to simply declare an income tax holiday of 2
or three months. Who knows, maybe 4 months is the right number. The
whole concept is that rather than a giveaway, which makes people
dependent on the government, the people simply get to keep more of
what they earned.

This would help the consumer consume AND help the small businesses man
expand and hire.

Jane.
wy
2010-02-19 03:20:15 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 18, 5:32 pm, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 4:59 pm,wy<***@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 1:00 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:41:09 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > >> That's retarded. ÊIt would mean that taxpayers would essentially be
> > > >> taking money out of their pocket and giving it to people that don't
> > > >> pay taxes. ÊA better idea would be to cut taxes, that way productive
> > > >> wage earners would be able to keep their money and spend it instead of
> > > >> funding people that are already getting unemployment or welfare.
>
> > > >You really do have a screw loose, or maybe more than your fair share
> > > >of screws loose, in your brain, don't you?  Tax cuts are one of the
> > > >things that got you in the mess that you're in now, beginning with
> > > >Reagan.
>
> > > Atta boy, exactly what I wanted to hear you say.
>
> > > Now explain the difference between taking tax money and handing it to
> > > people and tax cuts.
>
> > > Think it through.
>
> > The difference is that when you hand tax cuts that amount to little
> > more than a couple of hundred bucks and then the government has to
> > come back a few years later to increase taxes to not only subtract
> > that couple of hundred from you, but also add a little more to your
> > bill, nobody wins but the government.
>
> > Now, if you gave everybody $8,000, even in a recession, then
> > collectively all those individual $8,000, amounting to a trillion,
> > would be directly funneled into getting the economy back on track in
> > much less time because, obviously, people are going to spend it,
> > which, obviously, will have a far more and immediate impact on the
> > economy than just a piddly $200.  And if not spend it, then they'd pay
> > off or lighten up on some debts so that they can get around to
> > spending again later on.  That way, people get to spend, get what they
> > want, businesses recover and get to keep their employees, who won't
> > have to burden taxpayers by having to go on unemployment, and the
> > government gets increased tax sales revenue much more quickly and for
> > a more sustained period of time, since not everybody will spend $8,000
> > the very same week they get it, which makes it all a win-win-win-win
> > for the average Joe and Jane, businesses, their employees and the IRS.
>
> > Giving a trillion to banks and businesses has only proven one thing
> > with crystal clarity after a year and a half: it doesn't work.  It's
> > not in the interest or nature of banks and businesses to get the
> > economy going, they're only in it to profit from an economy.  The
> > economy is the people's business, they're the ones that buy and keep
> > buying each and every hour of each and every day en masse.
> > Governments need to learn this if they want to stop wasting your
> > money.
>
> Although you and I usually have completely opposing views, this is one
> area where you and I are in agreement, especially giving the money to
> Joe and Jane :-).  When the government gives taxpayer (or borrowed)
> money to business, the government determines which businesses are
> going to succeed and which ones are going to fail.  This has many,
> many failings. One of which is that the decisions often are political
> rather than economic decisions.
>
> When the consumer gets the money, it is the consumer that decides
> which business serve them the best, and the consumer determines which
> business will succeed.
>
> However, you and I do have slightly different implementation ideas.
> Giving money once again becomes a political rather than an economic
> decision.  The decision as to who gets the money is determined by the
> number of votes that can be bought with the giveaway money.  My
> implementation would be to simply declare an income tax holiday of 2
> or three months. Who knows, maybe 4 months is the right number. The
> whole concept is that rather than a giveaway, which makes people
> dependent on the government, the people simply get to keep more of
> what they earned.
>
> This would help the consumer consume AND help the small businesses man
> expand and hire.

Well, finally, you're not talking gibberish, at least in this case.
As to whether it's a political or economic decision to give everybody
$8 grand, it doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that the
government had every intention of putting a trillion dollars into
somebody's pockets. Unfortunately, they were the wrong pockets. And
giving a tax holiday of a few months would do nothing to get things
moving again. You need to hand over concrete cash to motivate people
into getting out there and buying, because a tax holiday is just
invisible money and people just don't know how to work with that.
There's nothing to be lost with handing out concrete cash, it's all
going to get circulated by people on a massive level in ways that
banks and businesses can't or won't do it, and everybody would just
end up benefiting from it. To prove it, all you have to do is pay out
$8 grand to every poor person in some poverty-stricken neighborhood
and just watch how all the businesses in that area will profit from
that real quick, to the extent that they'd have to start hiring some
of those poor people to serve the new suddenly wealthy clientele.
There's nothing like cold, hard cash as a great, foolproof motivator.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-23 13:17:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:59:52 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 18, 1:00 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:41:09 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> That's retarded. ÊIt would mean that taxpayers would essentially be
>> >> taking money out of their pocket and giving it to people that don't
>> >> pay taxes. ÊA better idea would be to cut taxes, that way productive
>> >> wage earners would be able to keep their money and spend it instead of
>> >> funding people that are already getting unemployment or welfare.
>>
>> >You really do have a screw loose, or maybe more than your fair share
>> >of screws loose, in your brain, don't you?  Tax cuts are one of the
>> >things that got you in the mess that you're in now, beginning with
>> >Reagan.
>>
>> Atta boy, exactly what I wanted to hear you say.
>>
>> Now explain the difference between taking tax money and handing it to
>> people and tax cuts.
>>
>> Think it through.
>
>The difference is that when you hand tax cuts that amount to little
>more than a couple of hundred bucks and then the government has to
>come back a few years later to increase taxes to not only subtract
>that couple of hundred from you, but also add a little more to your
>bill, nobody wins but the government.
>
>Now, if you gave everybody $8,000, even in a recession, then
>collectively all those individual $8,000, amounting to a trillion,
>would be directly funneled into getting the economy back on track in
>much less time because, obviously, people are going to spend it,
>which, obviously, will have a far more and immediate impact on the
>economy than just a piddly $200. And if not spend it, then they'd pay
>off or lighten up on some debts so that they can get around to
>spending again later on. That way, people get to spend, get what they
>want, businesses recover and get to keep their employees, who won't
>have to burden taxpayers by having to go on unemployment, and the
>government gets increased tax sales revenue much more quickly and for
>a more sustained period of time, since not everybody will spend $8,000
>the very same week they get it, which makes it all a win-win-win-win
>for the average Joe and Jane, businesses, their employees and the IRS.
>
>Giving a trillion to banks and businesses has only proven one thing
>with crystal clarity after a year and a half: it doesn't work. It's
>not in the interest or nature of banks and businesses to get the
>economy going, they're only in it to profit from an economy. The
>economy is the people's business, they're the ones that buy and keep
>buying each and every hour of each and every day en masse.
>Governments need to learn this if they want to stop wasting your
>money.

So you're all for redistributive change. Gotcha.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-23 15:58:29 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 23, 8:17 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:59:52 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 18, 1:00Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:41:09 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> That's retarded. æIt would mean that taxpayers would essentially be
> >> >> taking money out of their pocket and giving it to people that don't
> >> >> pay taxes. æA better idea would be to cut taxes, that way productive
> >> >> wage earners would be able to keep their money and spend it instead of
> >> >> funding people that are already getting unemployment or welfare.
>
> >> >You really do have a screw loose, or maybe more than your fair share
> >> >of screws loose, in your brain, don't you? ÊTax cuts are one of the
> >> >things that got you in the mess that you're in now, beginning with
> >> >Reagan.
>
> >> Atta boy, exactly what I wanted to hear you say.
>
> >> Now explain the difference between taking tax money and handing it to
> >> people and tax cuts.
>
> >> Think it through.
>
> >The difference is that when you hand tax cuts that amount to little
> >more than a couple of hundred bucks and then the government has to
> >come back a few years later to increase taxes to not only subtract
> >that couple of hundred from you, but also add a little more to your
> >bill, nobody wins but the government.
>
> >Now, if you gave everybody $8,000, even in a recession, then
> >collectively all those individual $8,000, amounting to a trillion,
> >would be directly funneled into getting the economy back on track in
> >much less time because, obviously, people are going to spend it,
> >which, obviously, will have a far more and immediate impact on the
> >economy than just a piddly $200.  And if not spend it, then they'd pay
> >off or lighten up on some debts so that they can get around to
> >spending again later on.  That way, people get to spend, get what they
> >want, businesses recover and get to keep their employees, who won't
> >have to burden taxpayers by having to go on unemployment, and the
> >government gets increased tax sales revenue much more quickly and for
> >a more sustained period of time, since not everybody will spend $8,000
> >the very same week they get it, which makes it all a win-win-win-win
> >for the average Joe and Jane, businesses, their employees and the IRS.
>
> >Giving a trillion to banks and businesses has only proven one thing
> >with crystal clarity after a year and a half: it doesn't work.  It's
> >not in the interest or nature of banks and businesses to get the
> >economy going, they're only in it to profit from an economy.  The
> >economy is the people's business, they're the ones that buy and keep
> >buying each and every hour of each and every day en masse.
> >Governments need to learn this if they want to stop wasting your
> >money.
>
> So you're all for redistributive change.  Gotcha.

A typically meaningless lab_rat statement that essentially says
nothing and disproves nothing.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-23 16:03:13 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:58:29 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 23, 8:17 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:59:52 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 18, 1:00Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:41:09 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> That's retarded. æIt would mean that taxpayers would essentially be
>> >> >> taking money out of their pocket and giving it to people that don't
>> >> >> pay taxes. æA better idea would be to cut taxes, that way productive
>> >> >> wage earners would be able to keep their money and spend it instead of
>> >> >> funding people that are already getting unemployment or welfare.
>>
>> >> >You really do have a screw loose, or maybe more than your fair share
>> >> >of screws loose, in your brain, don't you? ÊTax cuts are one of the
>> >> >things that got you in the mess that you're in now, beginning with
>> >> >Reagan.
>>
>> >> Atta boy, exactly what I wanted to hear you say.
>>
>> >> Now explain the difference between taking tax money and handing it to
>> >> people and tax cuts.
>>
>> >> Think it through.
>>
>> >The difference is that when you hand tax cuts that amount to little
>> >more than a couple of hundred bucks and then the government has to
>> >come back a few years later to increase taxes to not only subtract
>> >that couple of hundred from you, but also add a little more to your
>> >bill, nobody wins but the government.
>>
>> >Now, if you gave everybody $8,000, even in a recession, then
>> >collectively all those individual $8,000, amounting to a trillion,
>> >would be directly funneled into getting the economy back on track in
>> >much less time because, obviously, people are going to spend it,
>> >which, obviously, will have a far more and immediate impact on the
>> >economy than just a piddly $200.  And if not spend it, then they'd pay
>> >off or lighten up on some debts so that they can get around to
>> >spending again later on.  That way, people get to spend, get what they
>> >want, businesses recover and get to keep their employees, who won't
>> >have to burden taxpayers by having to go on unemployment, and the
>> >government gets increased tax sales revenue much more quickly and for
>> >a more sustained period of time, since not everybody will spend $8,000
>> >the very same week they get it, which makes it all a win-win-win-win
>> >for the average Joe and Jane, businesses, their employees and the IRS.
>>
>> >Giving a trillion to banks and businesses has only proven one thing
>> >with crystal clarity after a year and a half: it doesn't work.  It's
>> >not in the interest or nature of banks and businesses to get the
>> >economy going, they're only in it to profit from an economy.  The
>> >economy is the people's business, they're the ones that buy and keep
>> >buying each and every hour of each and every day en masse.
>> >Governments need to learn this if they want to stop wasting your
>> >money.
>>
>> So you're all for redistributive change.  Gotcha.
>
>A typically meaningless lab_rat statement that essentially says
>nothing and disproves nothing.

It's meaningless because you don't understand what I got you to admit.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-23 16:12:23 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 23, 11:03 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:58:29 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 23, 8:17Êam, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:59:52 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >On Feb 18, 1:00æpm, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:41:09 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> That's retarded. ¾It would mean that taxpayers would essentially be
> >> >> >> taking money out of their pocket and giving it to people that don't
> >> >> >> pay taxes. ¾A better idea would be to cut taxes, that way productive
> >> >> >> wage earners would be able to keep their money and spend it instead of
> >> >> >> funding people that are already getting unemployment or welfare.
>
> >> >> >You really do have a screw loose, or maybe more than your fair share
> >> >> >of screws loose, in your brain, don't you? æTax cuts are one of the
> >> >> >things that got you in the mess that you're in now, beginning with
> >> >> >Reagan.
>
> >> >> Atta boy, exactly what I wanted to hear you say.
>
> >> >> Now explain the difference between taking tax money and handing it to
> >> >> people and tax cuts.
>
> >> >> Think it through.
>
> >> >The difference is that when you hand tax cuts that amount to little
> >> >more than a couple of hundred bucks and then the government has to
> >> >come back a few years later to increase taxes to not only subtract
> >> >that couple of hundred from you, but also add a little more to your
> >> >bill, nobody wins but the government.
>
> >> >Now, if you gave everybody $8,000, even in a recession, then
> >> >collectively all those individual $8,000, amounting to a trillion,
> >> >would be directly funneled into getting the economy back on track in
> >> >much less time because, obviously, people are going to spend it,
> >> >which, obviously, will have a far more and immediate impact on the
> >> >economy than just a piddly $200. ÊAnd if not spend it, then they'd pay
> >> >off or lighten up on some debts so that they can get around to
> >> >spending again later on. ÊThat way, people get to spend, get what they
> >> >want, businesses recover and get to keep their employees, who won't
> >> >have to burden taxpayers by having to go on unemployment, and the
> >> >government gets increased tax sales revenue much more quickly and for
> >> >a more sustained period of time, since not everybody will spend $8,000
> >> >the very same week they get it, which makes it all a win-win-win-win
> >> >for the average Joe and Jane, businesses, their employees and the IRS.
>
> >> >Giving a trillion to banks and businesses has only proven one thing
> >> >with crystal clarity after a year and a half: it doesn't work. ÊIt's
> >> >not in the interest or nature of banks and businesses to get the
> >> >economy going, they're only in it to profit from an economy. ÊThe
> >> >economy is the people's business, they're the ones that buy and keep
> >> >buying each and every hour of each and every day en masse.
> >> >Governments need to learn this if they want to stop wasting your
> >> >money.
>
> >> So you're all for redistributive change. ÊGotcha.
>
> >A typically meaningless lab_rat statement that essentially says
> >nothing and disproves nothing.
>
> It's meaningless because you don't understand what I got you to admit.

I wasn't denying anything at all. I made my point and that's what it
is. And that's why yours was a meaningless statement. It makes no
point about my point.
KK
2010-02-16 20:49:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:18:44 -0800, wy wrote:

> On Feb 16, 7:53 am, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800,wywrote:
>> > On Feb 15, 1:53 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31Êam, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com>
>> >> >> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> You're a sheep. æSmall business, which creates 75%-80% of
>> >> >> >> jobs, aren't monolithic, faceless entities you can just label
>> >> >> >> as "evil" and justify any manner of fucking you wish: æthey're
>> >> >> >> people. æIndividuals who have created something out of
>> >> >> >> nothing, with their own capital, which amog other things,
>> >> >> >> provides livelihood for its employees.
>>
>> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their
>> >> >> >business. Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in
>> >> >> >order to have a business. ÊYou think the guy who runs the corner
>> >> >> >grocery made anything in that store he's running? ÊAll that
>> >> >> >stuff he sells came from other businesses, much bigger
>> >> >> >businesses, the 25% of businesses that really run the engine of
>> >> >> >the economy, without which the other 75% would have nothing to
>> >> >> >sell.
>>
>> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from
>> >> >> another larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot
>> >> >> and it would magically turn into a school, library, hospital,
>> >> >> etc. all on its lonesome?
>>
>> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel?  No.  Without
>> >> >those things, you'd have no job.  In order for your end of the 75%
>> >> >of small businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of
>> >> >businesses that can make that happen for you.
>>
>> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> >> shit?  And did you grow your own food to produce that shit?  If not,
>> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help
>> >> you along with that.
>>
>> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> >> consider small businesses.
>>
>> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make?  That we
>> >> need large businesses?  I'm not going to argue that.  You started
>> >> off by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers
>> >> of products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is
>> >> clearly false.
>>
>> > Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping
>> > all that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>>
>> You really don't see that a person who buys lumber and steel and a
>> near- infinity of other products and assembles them into a structure
>> hasn't made those same raw materials into something of more value?
>
> What he does with it can't be done at all if someone didn't create the
> raw material for him to play with in the first place.

So what? The lumber factory couldn't have made the lumber without the
trees. The labor is value added by the builder and is as critical to the
end product as the raw materials. You seem to be barreling towards the
same dead end in every post.


> There's a
> difference between actually creating the raw material, largely the
> domain of big business, and then doing whatever you want with it,
> largely the domain of small business.

Now you're just stupid.

You think that automobile or appliance manufacturers are "small
business"? You think that most manufacturing, for that matter, is "small
business"?





> But the raw material still needs
> to be created first, and small businesses do not in any significant
> number create raw material.

Again: so?
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-16 13:09:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 15, 1:53 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 15, 8:31Êam, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> You're a sheep. æSmall business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
>> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
>> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: æthey're people. æIndividuals who have
>> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
>> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>>
>> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
>> >> >business. ÊYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
>> >> >in that store he's running? ÊAll that stuff he sells came from other
>> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
>> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
>> >> >nothing to sell.
>>
>> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
>> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
>> >> lonesome?
>>
>> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel?  No.  Without those
>> >things, you'd have no job.  In order for your end of the 75% of small
>> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>> >can make that happen for you.
>>
>> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> shit?  And did you grow your own food to produce that shit?  If not,
>> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
>> along with that.
>>
>> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> consider small businesses.
>>
>> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make?  That we
>> need large businesses?  I'm not going to argue that.  You started off
>> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
>> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
>> false.
>
>Well, of course you're reselling the products. You're not keeping all
>that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?

No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.

Of course, you can take a look at this in another way. Major
manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
parts to keep it running etc. Generally all of those suppliers are
smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
(relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
jane
2010-02-16 14:36:42 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> >> >> lonesome?
>
> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> >> along with that.
>
> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> >> consider small businesses.
>
> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> >> false.
>
> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
> --
> lab~rat  >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

Don't waste your time with Wy; he is incapable of learning anything.

On Sept 25, 2009, Wy stated that the US is ranked 37th in health. The
next day, I posted the actual WHO data the proved that the 37th
ranking was bogus. (http://tinyurl.com/ygqy8zv)

Now Wy is again posting the bogus 37th ranking.

There is a difference between a person who lacks knowledge and a
person who doesn't learn.
The first is called "ignorant"; the second is called "Wy".

Jane
wy
2010-02-16 20:29:32 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 9:36 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> > >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> > >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> > >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> > >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> > >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> > >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> > >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> > >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> > >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> > >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> > >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> > >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> > >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> > >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> > >> >> lonesome?
>
> > >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> > >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> > >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> > >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> > >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> > >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> > >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> > >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> > >> along with that.
>
> > >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> > >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> > >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> > >> consider small businesses.
>
> > >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> > >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> > >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> > >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> > >> false.
>
> > >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> > >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> > No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> > Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> > manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> > outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> > parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> > smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> > (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
> > --
> > lab~rat  >:-)
> > Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
> Don't waste your time withWy; he is incapable of learning anything.
>
> On Sept 25, 2009,Wystated that the US is ranked 37th in health.  The
> next day, I posted the actual WHO data the proved that the 37th
> ranking was bogus. (http://tinyurl.com/ygqy8zv)
>
> NowWyis again posting the bogus 37th ranking.
>
> There is a difference between a person who lacks knowledge and a
> person who doesn't learn.
> The first is called "ignorant"; the second is called  "Wy".

Oh, you mean this WHO data that proved that the "bogus" ranking was
correct?

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html

>
> Jane

Jane - if that is your name. Just lie back and spread your legs.
That's the only intelligence you've got to show.
jane
2010-02-16 20:52:55 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 3:29 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 9:36 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> > > >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> > > >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> > > >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> > > >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> > > >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> > > >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> > > >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> > > >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> > > >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> > > >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> > > >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> > > >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> > > >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> > > >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> > > >> >> lonesome?
>
> > > >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> > > >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> > > >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> > > >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> > > >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> > > >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> > > >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> > > >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> > > >> along with that.
>
> > > >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> > > >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> > > >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> > > >> consider small businesses.
>
> > > >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> > > >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> > > >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> > > >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> > > >> false.
>
> > > >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> > > >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> > > No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> > > Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> > > manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> > > outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> > > parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> > > smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> > > (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
> > > --
> > > lab~rat  >:-)
> > > Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
> > Don't waste your time withWy; he is incapable of learning anything.
>
> > On Sept 25, 2009,Wystated that the US is ranked 37th in health.  The
> > next day, I posted the actual WHO data the proved that the 37th
> > ranking was bogus. (http://tinyurl.com/ygqy8zv)
>
> > NowWyis again posting the bogus 37th ranking.
>
> > There is a difference between a person who lacks knowledge and a
> > person who doesn't learn.
> > The first is called "ignorant"; the second is called  "Wy".
>
> Oh, you mean this WHO data that proved that the "bogus" ranking was
> correct?
>
> http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html
>
>
>
> > Jane
>
> Jane - if that is your name.  Just lie back and spread your legs.
> That's the only intelligence you've got to show.

All you did was post the press release. If you had gone to the ACTUAL
data, you would have found the distinction between the OP rating and
the OA ranking. The OA ranking is the Overall Achievement rating.

You would also have found data regarding their measure of "data
uncertainty".

Here is what I posted to you back in Sept, 2009:

I am surprised that people still reference the WHO 37th ranking.
For
one, there are two WHO rankings, the Overall Performance (OP) and the
Overall Achievement (OA). For another, it illustrates the poster’s
superficial knowledge of the data.

For example, Costa Rica has a WHO Overall Performance (OP) ranking of
36. Since the US has an OP ranking of 37, one could presume that a
person in Costa Rica and the US would obtain similar health care,
right? Well, if you made that presumption, you would be wrong. You
see, the OP ranking includes the amount a country spends on health
care. A country with a high health care Overall Achievement (OA)
ranking that spends a lot of money, such as the US, will get pulled
down in the OP ranking. A country with a low OA ranking, but spends
very little on health care, will get pulled up in the OP ranking. If
you eliminate the amount spent criterion, then the US has an OA
ranking of
15 and Costa Rica has an OA ranking of 45. That's quite a
difference,
wouldn't you say? BTW: OP Number one ranked France has an OA ranking
of 6.

SOooo… Since the US has an OA ranking of 15 and France has an OA
ranking of 6, does that mean that you will get better health care in
France or Canada (ranked 7)? Not so fast if you said yes. In
statistics, there is what is called “Uncertainty” and “Sensitivity” .
The WHO provides these “Uncertainty” figures. Due to “Data
Uncertainty”, using WHO statistics, by WHO’s own admission, a person
could not state, with certainty, that France, Switzerland, Sweden,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Germany UK, or Canada has better
health care than the US. ( there are many more, but you get the
point). A direct quote from the WHO paper states that, "even the
second ranked country Switzerland could in fact be doing worse than
the 15th ranked country the United States"

So, you see, if you claim that the US is ranked 37th, you are
exposing
your lack of knowledge of statistics, data uncertainty, and the
actual
data in the WHO reports.

Jane
wy
2010-02-17 00:36:20 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 3:52 pm, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 3:29 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 9:36 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > > >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> > > > >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> > > > >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> > > > >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> > > > >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> > > > >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> > > > >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> > > > >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> > > > >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> > > > >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> > > > >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> > > > >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> > > > >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> > > > >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> > > > >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> > > > >> >> lonesome?
>
> > > > >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> > > > >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> > > > >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> > > > >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> > > > >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> > > > >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> > > > >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> > > > >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> > > > >> along with that.
>
> > > > >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> > > > >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> > > > >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> > > > >> consider small businesses.
>
> > > > >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> > > > >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> > > > >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> > > > >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> > > > >> false.
>
> > > > >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> > > > >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> > > > No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> > > > Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> > > > manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> > > > outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> > > > parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> > > > smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> > > > (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
> > > > --
> > > > lab~rat  >:-)
> > > > Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
> > > Don't waste your time withWy; he is incapable of learning anything.
>
> > > On Sept 25, 2009,Wystated that the US is ranked 37th in health.  The
> > > next day, I posted the actual WHO data the proved that the 37th
> > > ranking was bogus. (http://tinyurl.com/ygqy8zv)
>
> > > NowWyis again posting the bogus 37th ranking.
>
> > > There is a difference between a person who lacks knowledge and a
> > > person who doesn't learn.
> > > The first is called "ignorant"; the second is called  "Wy".
>
> > Oh, you mean this WHO data that proved that the "bogus" ranking was
> > correct?
>
> >http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html
>
> > > Jane
>
> > Jane - if that is your name.  Just lie back and spread your legs.
> > That's the only intelligence you've got to show.
>
> All you did was post the press release.  If you had gone to the ACTUAL
> data, you would have found the distinction between the OP rating and
> the OA ranking.  The OA ranking is the Overall Achievement rating.
>
> You would also have found data regarding their measure of "data
> uncertainty".
>
> Here is what I posted to you back in Sept, 2009:
>
> I am surprised that people still reference the WHO 37th ranking.
> For
> one, there are two WHO rankings, the Overall Performance (OP) and the
> Overall Achievement (OA).  For another, it illustrates the poster’s
> superficial knowledge of the data.
>
> For example, Costa Rica has a WHO Overall Performance (OP) ranking of
> 36.  Since the US has an OP ranking of 37, one could presume that a
> person in Costa Rica and the US would obtain similar health care,
> right?  Well, if you made that presumption, you would be wrong.  You
> see, the OP ranking includes the amount a country spends on health
> care.  A country with a high health care Overall Achievement (OA)
> ranking that spends a lot of money, such as the US, will get pulled
> down in the OP ranking.  A country with a low OA ranking, but spends
> very little on health care, will get pulled up in the OP ranking.  If
> you eliminate the amount spent criterion, then the US has an OA
> ranking of
> 15 and Costa Rica has an OA ranking of 45.  That's quite a
> difference,
> wouldn't you say?  BTW: OP Number one ranked France has an OA ranking
> of 6.
>
> SOooo… Since the US has an OA ranking of 15 and France has an OA
> ranking of 6, does that mean that you will get better health care in
> France or Canada (ranked 7)?  Not so fast if you said yes.  In
> statistics, there is what is called “Uncertainty” and “Sensitivity” .
> The WHO provides these “Uncertainty” figures. Due to “Data
> Uncertainty”, using WHO statistics, by WHO’s own admission, a person
> could not state, with certainty, that France, Switzerland, Sweden,
> Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Germany  UK,  or Canada has better
> health care than the US. ( there are many more, but you get the
> point).  A direct quote from the WHO paper states that, "even the
> second ranked country Switzerland could in fact be doing worse than
> the 15th ranked country the United States"
>
> So, you see, if you claim that the US is ranked 37th, you are
> exposing
> your lack of knowledge of statistics, data uncertainty, and the
> actual
> data in the WHO reports.

Yeah, well, that's all very impressive, but a) you don't back it up
with a link for me to see for myself how you may be subverting the
information, and b) what the hell does Overall Achievement supposed to
mean anyway, and how is it determined, and how does it both validly
affect health care either way and the ranking of a country with any
real certainty? You throw around fancy explanation of everything that
tells me essentially nothing.



>
> Jane
jane
2010-02-17 14:46:54 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 7:36 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 3:52 pm, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 3:29 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 9:36 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > > >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > > >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > > >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> > > > > >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> > > > > >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> > > > > >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> > > > > >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> > > > > >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> > > > > >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> > > > > >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> > > > > >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> > > > > >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> > > > > >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> > > > > >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> > > > > >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> > > > > >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> > > > > >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> > > > > >> >> lonesome?
>
> > > > > >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> > > > > >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> > > > > >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> > > > > >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> > > > > >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> > > > > >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> > > > > >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> > > > > >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> > > > > >> along with that.
>
> > > > > >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> > > > > >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> > > > > >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> > > > > >> consider small businesses.
>
> > > > > >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> > > > > >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> > > > > >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> > > > > >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> > > > > >> false.
>
> > > > > >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> > > > > >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> > > > > No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> > > > > Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> > > > > manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> > > > > outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> > > > > parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> > > > > smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> > > > > (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
> > > > > --
> > > > > lab~rat  >:-)
> > > > > Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
> > > > Don't waste your time withWy; he is incapable of learning anything.
>
> > > > On Sept 25, 2009,Wystated that the US is ranked 37th in health.  The
> > > > next day, I posted the actual WHO data the proved that the 37th
> > > > ranking was bogus. (http://tinyurl.com/ygqy8zv)
>
> > > > NowWyis again posting the bogus 37th ranking.
>
> > > > There is a difference between a person who lacks knowledge and a
> > > > person who doesn't learn.
> > > > The first is called "ignorant"; the second is called  "Wy".
>
> > > Oh, you mean this WHO data that proved that the "bogus" ranking was
> > > correct?
>
> > >http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html
>
> > > > Jane
>
> > > Jane - if that is your name.  Just lie back and spread your legs.
> > > That's the only intelligence you've got to show.
>
> > All you did was post the press release.  If you had gone to the ACTUAL
> > data, you would have found the distinction between the OP rating and
> > the OA ranking.  The OA ranking is the Overall Achievement rating.
>
> > You would also have found data regarding their measure of "data
> > uncertainty".
>
> > Here is what I posted to you back in Sept, 2009:
>
> > I am surprised that people still reference the WHO 37th ranking.
> > For
> > one, there are two WHO rankings, the Overall Performance (OP) and the
> > Overall Achievement (OA).  For another, it illustrates the poster’s
> > superficial knowledge of the data.
>
> > For example, Costa Rica has a WHO Overall Performance (OP) ranking of
> > 36.  Since the US has an OP ranking of 37, one could presume that a
> > person in Costa Rica and the US would obtain similar health care,
> > right?  Well, if you made that presumption, you would be wrong.  You
> > see, the OP ranking includes the amount a country spends on health
> > care.  A country with a high health care Overall Achievement (OA)
> > ranking that spends a lot of money, such as the US, will get pulled
> > down in the OP ranking.  A country with a low OA ranking, but spends
> > very little on health care, will get pulled up in the OP ranking.  If
> > you eliminate the amount spent criterion, then the US has an OA
> > ranking of
> > 15 and Costa Rica has an OA ranking of 45.  That's quite a
> > difference,
> > wouldn't you say?  BTW: OP Number one ranked France has an OA ranking
> > of 6.
>
> > SOooo… Since the US has an OA ranking of 15 and France has an OA
> > ranking of 6, does that mean that you will get better health care in
> > France or Canada (ranked 7)?  Not so fast if you said yes.  In
> > statistics, there is what is called “Uncertainty” and “Sensitivity” .
> > The WHO provides these “Uncertainty” figures. Due to “Data
> > Uncertainty”, using WHO statistics, by WHO’s own admission, a person
> > could not state, with certainty, that France, Switzerland, Sweden,
> > Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Germany  UK,  or Canada has better
> > health care than the US. ( there are many more, but you get the
> > point).  A direct quote from the WHO paper states that, "even the
> > second ranked country Switzerland could in fact be doing worse than
> > the 15th ranked country the United States"
>
> > So, you see, if you claim that the US is ranked 37th, you are
> > exposing
> > your lack of knowledge of statistics, data uncertainty, and the
> > actual
> > data in the WHO reports.
>
> Yeah, well, that's all very impressive, but a) you don't back it up
> with a link for me to see for myself how you may be subverting the
> information, and b) what the hell does Overall Achievement supposed to
> mean anyway, and how is it determined, and how does it both validly
> affect health care either way and the ranking of a country with any
> real certainty?  You throw around fancy explanation of everything that
> tells me essentially nothing.
>
>
>
> > Jane

I don't have to provide you with a link. To be in legal accordance,
all I have to do is reference the source. I did that; the source of
the data is the WHO report that YOU referenced in YOUR post. If I
utilized a Right Wing source, a left winger would deny the validity.
If I utilized a Left Wing source, the right winger would deny the
validity. To avoid that problem, I utilized ONLY one source: the WHO
report and their supporting papers.

There are two problems with giving you internet links. The first
problem: I was working from the hard copy of the WHO reports. The
second problem: YOU referenced a report that is ten years old. Since
YOU presented the WHO report in your post, do your own homework.


You asked, "what the hell does Overall Achievement supposed to mean
anyway". Well, it means Overall Health System ACHIEVEMENT. YOU
referenced the OP rating. Tell me, Wy, what the hell does OP supposed
to mean anyway??? Both are in the WHO report and supporting papers
that YOU referenced.


You stated that I "may be subverting the information". Here is a
DIRECT quote from the WHO report, "even the second ranked country
Switzerland could in fact be doing worse than the 15th ranked country
the United States". That is the opinion of WHO, not my subversion.


You asked, "how does it both validly affect health care either way and
the ranking of a country with any real certainty?". That answer,
including the data Uncertainty Interval, is in the WHO report that YOU
referenced.

You stated, "You throw around fancy explanation of everything that
tells me essentially nothing." Uncertainty Intervals and Data
Uncertainty are standard aspects of statistics.

Let me give you two examples. Presume that you have stopwatches
where the smallest timing marks are 1/10th of a second. Now presume
that the finish difference between two racers is 1/100th of a second.
Using that stopwatch, can you state with certainty, which racer came
if first and which one came in second?

The second example: Presume that you have a stopwatch with a 1/1000
second resolution, BUT the human reaction time bias of the person
pushing the button is 37ms. Also presume that the difference between
first and second place is 10ms. Can you use these stopwatches and
state with certainty which racer came in first?



Jane
wy
2010-02-17 17:19:22 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 17, 9:46 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:36 pm,wy<***@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 3:52 pm, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 3:29 pm,wy<***@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 16, 9:36 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > > > >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > > > >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > > > >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> > > > > > >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> > > > > > >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> > > > > > >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> > > > > > >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> > > > > > >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> > > > > > >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> > > > > > >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> > > > > > >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> > > > > > >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> > > > > > >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> > > > > > >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> > > > > > >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> > > > > > >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> > > > > > >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> > > > > > >> >> lonesome?
>
> > > > > > >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> > > > > > >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> > > > > > >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> > > > > > >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> > > > > > >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> > > > > > >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> > > > > > >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> > > > > > >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> > > > > > >> along with that.
>
> > > > > > >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> > > > > > >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> > > > > > >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> > > > > > >> consider small businesses.
>
> > > > > > >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> > > > > > >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> > > > > > >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> > > > > > >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> > > > > > >> false.
>
> > > > > > >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> > > > > > >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> > > > > > No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> > > > > > Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> > > > > > manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> > > > > > outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> > > > > > parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> > > > > > smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> > > > > > (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > lab~rat  >:-)
> > > > > > Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
> > > > > Don't waste your time withWy; he is incapable of learning anything.
>
> > > > > On Sept 25, 2009,Wystated that the US is ranked 37th in health.  The
> > > > > next day, I posted the actual WHO data the proved that the 37th
> > > > > ranking was bogus. (http://tinyurl.com/ygqy8zv)
>
> > > > > NowWyis again posting the bogus 37th ranking.
>
> > > > > There is a difference between a person who lacks knowledge and a
> > > > > person who doesn't learn.
> > > > > The first is called "ignorant"; the second is called  "Wy".
>
> > > > Oh, you mean this WHO data that proved that the "bogus" ranking was
> > > > correct?
>
> > > >http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html
>
> > > > > Jane
>
> > > > Jane - if that is your name.  Just lie back and spread your legs.
> > > > That's the only intelligence you've got to show.
>
> > > All you did was post the press release.  If you had gone to the ACTUAL
> > > data, you would have found the distinction between the OP rating and
> > > the OA ranking.  The OA ranking is the Overall Achievement rating.
>
> > > You would also have found data regarding their measure of "data
> > > uncertainty".
>
> > > Here is what I posted to you back in Sept, 2009:
>
> > > I am surprised that people still reference the WHO 37th ranking.
> > > For
> > > one, there are two WHO rankings, the Overall Performance (OP) and the
> > > Overall Achievement (OA).  For another, it illustrates the poster’s
> > > superficial knowledge of the data.
>
> > > For example, Costa Rica has a WHO Overall Performance (OP) ranking of
> > > 36.  Since the US has an OP ranking of 37, one could presume that a
> > > person in Costa Rica and the US would obtain similar health care,
> > > right?  Well, if you made that presumption, you would be wrong.  You
> > > see, the OP ranking includes the amount a country spends on health
> > > care.  A country with a high health care Overall Achievement (OA)
> > > ranking that spends a lot of money, such as the US, will get pulled
> > > down in the OP ranking.  A country with a low OA ranking, but spends
> > > very little on health care, will get pulled up in the OP ranking.  If
> > > you eliminate the amount spent criterion, then the US has an OA
> > > ranking of
> > > 15 and Costa Rica has an OA ranking of 45.  That's quite a
> > > difference,
> > > wouldn't you say?  BTW: OP Number one ranked France has an OA ranking
> > > of 6.
>
> > > SOooo… Since the US has an OA ranking of 15 and France has an OA
> > > ranking of 6, does that mean that you will get better health care in
> > > France or Canada (ranked 7)?  Not so fast if you said yes.  In
> > > statistics, there is what is called “Uncertainty” and “Sensitivity” .
> > > The WHO provides these “Uncertainty” figures. Due to “Data
> > > Uncertainty”, using WHO statistics, by WHO’s own admission, a person
> > > could not state, with certainty, that France, Switzerland, Sweden,
> > > Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Germany  UK,  or Canada has better
> > > health care than the US. ( there are many more, but you get the
> > > point).  A direct quote from the WHO paper states that, "even the
> > > second ranked country Switzerland could in fact be doing worse than
> > > the 15th ranked country the United States"
>
> > > So, you see, if you claim that the US is ranked 37th, you are
> > > exposing
> > > your lack of knowledge of statistics, data uncertainty, and the
> > > actual
> > > data in the WHO reports.
>
> > Yeah, well, that's all very impressive, but a) you don't back it up
> > with a link for me to see for myself how you may be subverting the
> > information, and b) what the hell does Overall Achievement supposed to
> > mean anyway, and how is it determined, and how does it both validly
> > affect health care either way and the ranking of a country with any
> > real certainty?  You throw around fancy explanation of everything that
> > tells me essentially nothing.
>
> > > Jane
>
> I don't have to provide you with a link.  To be in legal accordance,
> all I have to do is reference the source.  I did that; the source of
> the data is the  WHO report that YOU referenced in YOUR post.  If I
> utilized a Right Wing source, a left winger would deny the validity.
> If I utilized a Left Wing source, the right winger would deny the
> validity. To avoid that problem, I utilized ONLY one source: the WHO
> report and their supporting papers.

Oh-ho, Jane doesn't have to provide me a link for me to verify her
source, so she can babble on meaninglessly forever then. Sounds like
a typical Republican, one who can't back up what they say.

>
> There are two problems with giving you internet links. The first
> problem: I was working from the hard copy of the WHO reports.  The
> second problem:  YOU referenced a report that is ten years old.  Since
> YOU presented the WHO report in your post,  do your own homework.

That's all bull, of course, because if you were working from some
"hard copy," you would've said so right off the bat instead of "I
don't have to provide you a link." What's th epoint of even saying
that if it was some "hard copy" got it from? As for what I
referenced, I didn't refutation in a 5-minute search of that WHO
report. All it takes is some clever key word usage to get at
something real quick, and sometimes doing it through a Google image
search will get you the info that might elude you in a regular
search. And nada. I try not to spend an entire life looking for
refutations, but I usually do find something within 5 minutes. The
fact that you're using some "hard copy" proves there is no refutation
of the WHO report. And how exactly did you access this "obscure"
"hard copy" refutation of the WHO report anyway? You work for WHO?
You took time out of your life to head over to a library to seek it
out just to disprove what I said? What are you, 12 years old, and
think I'm that clueless? Get real.

If you have no link to back up what you say, then you can't play with
any "hard copies" as proof of anything, especially when you're trying
prove something in a newsgroup because nobody will buy into it,
especially me.


>
> You asked, "what the hell does Overall Achievement supposed to mean
> anyway".  Well, it means Overall Health System ACHIEVEMENT.  YOU
> referenced the OP rating. Tell me,Wy, what the hell does OP supposed
> to mean anyway???  Both are in the WHO report and supporting papers
> that YOU referenced.

Who knows what it means since the article made no mention of any OP or
OA. You're the one doing that. And how do I know that OA really
means Overall Health System Achievement? Shouldn't it be OHSA?
Where'd you get the Health System part it if from? And how do I know
that's what it really says in your "hard copy" and not what you would
like it mean? I don't. Because you have the "hard copy" I can't see
to be able to refute it in any way. That's why I need a link if you
expect me to believe anything you say. C'mon, be a good right-wingnut
and gimme a link already.


>
> You stated that I "may be subverting the information".  Here is a
> DIRECT quote from the WHO report, "even the second ranked country
> Switzerland could in fact be doing worse than the 15th ranked country
> the United States".  That is the opinion of WHO, not my subversion.

Without seeing it for myself, you could be saying anything at all to
your satisfaction as far as I'm concerned. Link, please.

>
> You asked, "how does it both validly affect health care either way and
> the ranking of a country with any  real certainty?".  That answer,
> including the data Uncertainty Interval, is in the WHO report that YOU
> referenced.

Not with respect to OA and OP, since the report doesn't mention
anything about OA and OP.

>
> You stated, "You throw around fancy explanation of everything that
> tells me essentially nothing." Uncertainty Intervals and Data
> Uncertainty are standard aspects of statistics.

Yeah, well, anybody can tell you that. It still tells me nothing
about what you were trying to prove.

>
>  Let me give you two examples.  Presume that you have  stopwatches
> where the smallest timing marks are 1/10th of a second.  Now presume
> that the finish difference between two racers is 1/100th of a second.
> Using that stopwatch, can you state with certainty, which racer came
> if first and which one came in second?

I don't care about stopwatches. Just give me the link already.

>
> The second example:  Presume that you have a stopwatch with a 1/1000
> second resolution, BUT the human reaction time bias of the person
> pushing the button is 37ms.  Also presume that the difference between
> first and second place is 10ms.  Can you use these stopwatches and
> state with certainty which racer came in first?

Still talking about stopwatches. Anything to avoid giving me a link,
huh? Such a good Republican. Here, have a cookie.

>
> Jane
jane
2010-02-17 18:24:43 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 17, 12:19 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 9:46 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 7:36 pm,wy<***@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 3:52 pm, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 16, 3:29 pm,wy<***@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 16, 9:36 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > > > > >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > > > > >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> > > > > > > >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> > > > > > > >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> > > > > > > >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> > > > > > > >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> > > > > > > >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> > > > > > > >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> > > > > > > >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> > > > > > > >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> > > > > > > >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> > > > > > > >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> > > > > > > >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> > > > > > > >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> > > > > > > >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> > > > > > > >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> > > > > > > >> >> lonesome?
>
> > > > > > > >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> > > > > > > >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> > > > > > > >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> > > > > > > >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> > > > > > > >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> > > > > > > >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> > > > > > > >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> > > > > > > >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> > > > > > > >> along with that.
>
> > > > > > > >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> > > > > > > >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> > > > > > > >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> > > > > > > >> consider small businesses.
>
> > > > > > > >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> > > > > > > >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> > > > > > > >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> > > > > > > >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> > > > > > > >> false.
>
> > > > > > > >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> > > > > > > >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> > > > > > > No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> > > > > > > Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> > > > > > > manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> > > > > > > outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> > > > > > > parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> > > > > > > smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> > > > > > > (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > lab~rat  >:-)
> > > > > > > Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
> > > > > > Don't waste your time withWy; he is incapable of learning anything.
>
> > > > > > On Sept 25, 2009,Wystated that the US is ranked 37th in health.  The
> > > > > > next day, I posted the actual WHO data the proved that the 37th
> > > > > > ranking was bogus. (http://tinyurl.com/ygqy8zv)
>
> > > > > > NowWyis again posting the bogus 37th ranking.
>
> > > > > > There is a difference between a person who lacks knowledge and a
> > > > > > person who doesn't learn.
> > > > > > The first is called "ignorant"; the second is called  "Wy".
>
> > > > > Oh, you mean this WHO data that proved that the "bogus" ranking was
> > > > > correct?
>
> > > > >http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html
>
> > > > > > Jane
>
> > > > > Jane - if that is your name.  Just lie back and spread your legs.
> > > > > That's the only intelligence you've got to show.
>
> > > > All you did was post the press release.  If you had gone to the ACTUAL
> > > > data, you would have found the distinction between the OP rating and
> > > > the OA ranking.  The OA ranking is the Overall Achievement rating.
>
> > > > You would also have found data regarding their measure of "data
> > > > uncertainty".
>
> > > > Here is what I posted to you back in Sept, 2009:
>
> > > > I am surprised that people still reference the WHO 37th ranking.
> > > > For
> > > > one, there are two WHO rankings, the Overall Performance (OP) and the
> > > > Overall Achievement (OA).  For another, it illustrates the poster’s
> > > > superficial knowledge of the data.
>
> > > > For example, Costa Rica has a WHO Overall Performance (OP) ranking of
> > > > 36.  Since the US has an OP ranking of 37, one could presume that a
> > > > person in Costa Rica and the US would obtain similar health care,
> > > > right?  Well, if you made that presumption, you would be wrong.  You
> > > > see, the OP ranking includes the amount a country spends on health
> > > > care.  A country with a high health care Overall Achievement (OA)
> > > > ranking that spends a lot of money, such as the US, will get pulled
> > > > down in the OP ranking.  A country with a low OA ranking, but spends
> > > > very little on health care, will get pulled up in the OP ranking.  If
> > > > you eliminate the amount spent criterion, then the US has an OA
> > > > ranking of
> > > > 15 and Costa Rica has an OA ranking of 45.  That's quite a
> > > > difference,
> > > > wouldn't you say?  BTW: OP Number one ranked France has an OA ranking
> > > > of 6.
>
> > > > SOooo… Since the US has an OA ranking of 15 and France has an OA
> > > > ranking of 6, does that mean that you will get better health care in
> > > > France or Canada (ranked 7)?  Not so fast if you said yes.  In
> > > > statistics, there is what is called “Uncertainty” and “Sensitivity” .
> > > > The WHO provides these “Uncertainty” figures. Due to “Data
> > > > Uncertainty”, using WHO statistics, by WHO’s own admission, a person
> > > > could not state, with certainty, that France, Switzerland, Sweden,
> > > > Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Germany  UK,  or Canada has better
> > > > health care than the US. ( there are many more, but you get the
> > > > point).  A direct quote from the WHO paper states that, "even the
> > > > second ranked country Switzerland could in fact be doing worse than
> > > > the 15th ranked country the United States"
>
> > > > So, you see, if you claim that the US is ranked 37th, you are
> > > > exposing
> > > > your lack of knowledge of statistics, data uncertainty, and the
> > > > actual
> > > > data in the WHO reports.
>
> > > Yeah, well, that's all very impressive, but a) you don't back it up
> > > with a link for me to see for myself how you may be subverting the
> > > information, and b) what the hell does Overall Achievement supposed to
> > > mean anyway, and how is it determined, and how does it both validly
> > > affect health care either way and the ranking of a country with any
> > > real certainty?  You throw around fancy explanation of everything that
> > > tells me essentially nothing.
>
> > > > Jane
>
> > I don't have to provide you with a link.  To be in legal accordance,
> > all I have to do is reference the source.  I did that; the source of
> > the data is the  WHO report that YOU referenced in YOUR post.  If I
> > utilized a Right Wing source, a left winger would deny the validity.
> > If I utilized a Left Wing source, the right winger would deny the
> > validity. To avoid that problem, I utilized ONLY one source: the WHO
> > report and their supporting papers.
>
> Oh-ho, Jane doesn't have to provide me a link for me to verify her
> source, so she can babble on meaninglessly forever then.  Sounds like
> a typical Republican, one who can't back up what they say.
>
>
>
> > There are two problems with giving you internet links. The first
> > problem: I was working from the hard copy of the WHO reports.  The
> > second problem:  YOU referenced a report that is ten years old.  Since
> > YOU presented the WHO report in your post,  do your own homework.
>
> That's all bull, of course, because if you were working from some
> "hard copy," you would've said so right off the bat instead of "I
> don't have to provide you a link."  What's th epoint of even saying
> that if it was some "hard copy" got it from?  As for what I
> referenced, I didn't refutation in a 5-minute search of that WHO
> report.  All it takes is some clever key word usage to get at
> something real quick, and sometimes doing it through a Google image
> search will get you the info that might elude you in a regular
> search.  And nada.  I try not to spend an entire life looking for
> refutations, but I usually do find something within 5 minutes.  The
> fact that you're using some "hard copy" proves there is no refutation
> of the WHO report.  And how exactly did you access this "obscure"
> "hard copy" refutation of the WHO report anyway?  You work for WHO?
> You took time out of your life to head over to a library to seek it
> out just to disprove what I said?  What are you, 12 years old, and
> think I'm that clueless?  Get real.
>
> If you have no link to back up what you say, then you can't play with
> any "hard copies" as proof of anything, especially when you're trying
> prove something in a newsgroup because nobody will buy into it,
> especially me.
>
>
>
> > You asked, "what the hell does Overall Achievement supposed to mean
> > anyway".  Well, it means Overall Health System ACHIEVEMENT.  YOU
> > referenced the OP rating. Tell me,Wy, what the hell does OP supposed
> > to mean anyway???  Both are in the WHO report and supporting papers
> > that YOU referenced.
>
> Who knows what it means since the article made no mention of any OP or
> OA.  You're the one doing that.  And how do I know that OA really
> means Overall Health System Achievement?  Shouldn't it be OHSA?
> Where'd you get the Health System part it if from?  And how do I know
> that's what it really says in your "hard copy" and not what you would
> like it mean?  I don't.  Because you have the "hard copy" I can't see
> to be able to refute it in any way.  That's why I need a link if you
> expect me to believe anything you say.  C'mon, be a good right-wingnut
> and gimme a link already.
>
>
>
> > You stated that I "may be subverting the information".  Here is a
> > DIRECT quote from the WHO report, "even the second ranked country
> > Switzerland could in fact be doing worse than the 15th ranked country
> > the United States".  That is the opinion of WHO, not my subversion.
>
> Without seeing it for myself, you could be saying anything at all to
> your satisfaction as far as I'm concerned.  Link, please.
>
>
>
> > You asked, "how does it both validly affect health care either way and
> > the ranking of a country with any  real certainty?".  That answer,
> > including the data Uncertainty Interval, is in the WHO report that YOU
> > referenced.
>
> Not with respect to OA and OP, since the report doesn't mention
> anything about OA and OP.
>
>
>
> > You stated, "You throw around fancy explanation of everything that
> > tells me essentially nothing." Uncertainty Intervals and Data
> > Uncertainty are standard aspects of statistics.
>
> Yeah, well, anybody can tell you that.  It still tells me nothing
> about what you were trying to prove.
>
>
>
> >  Let me give you two examples.  Presume that you have  stopwatches
> > where the smallest timing marks are 1/10th of a second.  Now presume
> > that the finish difference between two racers is 1/100th of a second.
> > Using that stopwatch, can you state with certainty, which racer came
> > if first and which one came in second?
>
> I don't care about stopwatches.  Just give me the link already.
>
>
>
> > The second example:  Presume that you have a stopwatch with a 1/1000
> > second resolution, BUT the human reaction time bias of the person
> > pushing the button is 37ms.  Also presume that the difference between
> > first and second place is 10ms.  Can you use these stopwatches and
> > state with certainty which racer came in first?
>
> Still talking about stopwatches.  Anything to avoid giving me a link,
> huh?  Such a good Republican.  Here, have a cookie.
>
> > Jane


You stated, " And how exactly did you access this "obscure"
"hard copy" refutation of the WHO report anyway?"

First point: I went to YOUR post of yesterday and clicked on YOUR
link. Withing that article, I found:
*Copies of the Report can be ordered from ***@who.ch.

Second point: It is not a refutation of the WHO report. It IS the
WHO report. The WHO report states the Uncertainty Interval. It is
the WHO report that stated that second place Switzerland could be
doing worse than the 15th ranked US - "Discussion Paper Series: No.
28".

You stated, " Not with respect to OA and OP, since the report doesn't
mention
anything about OA and OP."

The OA ranking is in "Annex Table 9 Overall health system attainment
in all Member States" on page 196,
the OP ranking is in "Annex Table 10 Health system performance in all
Member States" on page 200.
Note: The WHO uses "Overall Health System Achievement" and "Overall
Health System Attainment" in different reports.

You stated, "And how do I know that's what it really says in your
"hard copy" and not what you would
like it mean?" Buy the book.

When you order your report, be sure to order the supporting papers
that have these obscure names,
Discussion Paper Series: No. 28
GPE Discussion Paper Series: No. 29
GPE Discussion Paper Series: No. 30

Now go away until you have something intelligent to say.

Jane
cop welfare
2010-02-17 04:24:49 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 8:36 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> > >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> > >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> > >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> > >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> > >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> > >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> > >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> > >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> > >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> > >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> > >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> > >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> > >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> > >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> > >> >> lonesome?
>
> > >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> > >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> > >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> > >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> > >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> > >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> > >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> > >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> > >> along with that.
>
> > >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> > >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> > >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> > >> consider small businesses.
>
> > >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> > >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> > >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> > >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> > >> false.
>
> > >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> > >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> > No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> > Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> > manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> > outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> > parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> > smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> > (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
> > --
> > lab~rat  >:-)
> > Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
> Don't waste your time with Wy; he is incapable of learning anything.
>
> On Sept 25, 2009, Wy stated that the US is ranked 37th in health.  The
> next day, I posted the actual WHO data the proved that the 37th
> ranking was bogus. (http://tinyurl.com/ygqy8zv)
>
> Now Wy is again posting the bogus 37th ranking.
>
> There is a difference between a person who lacks knowledge and a
> person who doesn't learn.
> The first is called "ignorant"; the second is called  "Wy".
>
> Jane- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

now, now, jane...
you KNOW that that number isn't "bogus".
it simply fails to exhibit the whole picture.
you can argue statistics forever, can't you?
and i'm sure yer willing to do so...
if they don't agree with whatever view you hold to be advantageous to
yerself.
something about healthcare, wasn't it?
yer taking yer life in yer own hands if you trust usa healthcare,
private OR public.
have a nice day.
jane
2010-02-17 16:56:37 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 11:24 pm, cop welfare <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 8:36 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> > > >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> > > >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> > > >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> > > >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> > > >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> > > >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> > > >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> > > >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> > > >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> > > >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> > > >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> > > >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> > > >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> > > >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> > > >> >> lonesome?
>
> > > >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> > > >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> > > >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> > > >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> > > >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> > > >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> > > >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> > > >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> > > >> along with that.
>
> > > >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> > > >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> > > >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> > > >> consider small businesses.
>
> > > >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> > > >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> > > >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> > > >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> > > >> false.
>
> > > >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> > > >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> > > No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> > > Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> > > manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> > > outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> > > parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> > > smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> > > (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
> > > --
> > > lab~rat  >:-)
> > > Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
> > Don't waste your time with Wy; he is incapable of learning anything.
>
> > On Sept 25, 2009, Wy stated that the US is ranked 37th in health.  The
> > next day, I posted the actual WHO data the proved that the 37th
> > ranking was bogus. (http://tinyurl.com/ygqy8zv)
>
> > Now Wy is again posting the bogus 37th ranking.
>
> > There is a difference between a person who lacks knowledge and a
> > person who doesn't learn.
> > The first is called "ignorant"; the second is called  "Wy".
>
> > Jane- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> now, now, jane...
> you KNOW that that number isn't "bogus".
> it simply fails to exhibit the whole picture.
> you can argue statistics forever, can't you?
> and i'm sure yer willing to do so...
> if they don't agree with whatever view you hold to be advantageous to
> yerself.
> something about healthcare, wasn't it?
> yer taking yer life in yer own hands if you trust usa healthcare,
> private OR public.
> have a nice day.

Here is a DIRECT quote from the WHO report, "even the second ranked
country Switzerland could in fact be doing worse than the 15th ranked
country the United States".

It has to do with the Uncertainty Interval of the data. If an data
uncertainty prevents you from stating a ranking with certainty, the
ranking is bogus. This is why respected pollsters state margin of
error.

The WHO report states that, due to uncertainty, the countries should
be grouped in 9 different categories. The US is in the top category.
This WHO statement is ignored by those with an agenda.

Jane.
wy
2010-02-16 20:26:57 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> >> >> lonesome?
>
> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> >> along with that.
>
> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> >> consider small businesses.
>
> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> >> false.
>
> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.

Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
manufacturing plants with what they need. There's no getting around
big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
to be used by others for whatever purposes.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-16 20:41:33 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
>> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
>> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
>> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
>> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>>
>> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
>> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
>> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
>> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
>> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
>> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>>
>> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
>> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
>> >> >> lonesome?
>>
>> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
>> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
>> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>> >> >can make that happen for you.
>>
>> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
>> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
>> >> along with that.
>>
>> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> >> consider small businesses.
>>
>> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
>> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
>> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
>> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
>> >> false.
>>
>> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
>> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>>
>> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>>
>> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
>> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
>> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
>> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
>> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
>> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>
>Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
>themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
>finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
>materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
>enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
>profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
>on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
>or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
>manufacturing plants with what they need. There's no getting around
>big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
>to be used by others for whatever purposes.

Uh, ok. So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
create (in your world).

When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
with their raw materials?

There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
some of its needs to smaller businesses. They need small business to
survive. Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
wrenches...

On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me. So am
I a big small business?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-16 21:10:31 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 3:41 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> >> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> >> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> >> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> >> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> >> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> >> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> >> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> >> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> >> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> >> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> >> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> >> >> >> lonesome?
>
> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> >> >> along with that.
>
> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> >> >> consider small businesses.
>
> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> >> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> >> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> >> >> false.
>
> >> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> >> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> >> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> >> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> >> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> >> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> >> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> >> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> >> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>
> >Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
> >themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
> >finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
> >materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
> >enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
> >profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
> >on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
> >or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
> >manufacturing plants with what they need.  There's no getting around
> >big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
> >to be used by others for whatever purposes.
>
> Uh, ok.  So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
> create (in your world).
>
> When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
> with their raw materials?

Sit on them till the economy picks up?

>
> There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
> some of its needs to smaller businesses.  They need small business to
> survive.  Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
> their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
> wrenches...

Well, as long as there are people on this planet, there will always be
small businesses, and small businesses by extension will need big
businesses to feed them the raw materials, or even whole finished
products, of what they need in order to sell whatever they're
interested in selling to people.

>
> On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
> lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me.  So am
> I a big small business?

But you're not finding and creating any raw materials.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-16 21:24:48 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:10:31 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 16, 3:41 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
>> >> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
>> >> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
>> >> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
>> >> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>> >> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
>> >> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
>> >> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
>> >> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
>> >> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
>> >> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>>
>> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
>> >> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
>> >> >> >> lonesome?
>>
>> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
>> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
>> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>>
>> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
>> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
>> >> >> along with that.
>>
>> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> >> >> consider small businesses.
>>
>> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
>> >> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
>> >> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
>> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
>> >> >> false.
>>
>> >> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
>> >> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>>
>> >> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>>
>> >> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
>> >> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
>> >> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
>> >> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
>> >> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
>> >> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>>
>> >Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
>> >themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
>> >finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
>> >materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
>> >enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
>> >profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
>> >on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
>> >or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
>> >manufacturing plants with what they need.  There's no getting around
>> >big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
>> >to be used by others for whatever purposes.
>>
>> Uh, ok.  So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
>> create (in your world).
>>
>> When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
>> with their raw materials?
>
>Sit on them till the economy picks up?

LOL So they just shut down their operations and wait until small
businesses start creating again. Now that's brilliant.

>
>>
>> There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
>> some of its needs to smaller businesses.  They need small business to
>> survive.  Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
>> their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
>> wrenches...
>
>Well, as long as there are people on this planet, there will always be
>small businesses, and small businesses by extension will need big
>businesses to feed them the raw materials, or even whole finished
>products, of what they need in order to sell whatever they're
>interested in selling to people.
>
>>
>> On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
>> lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me.  So am
>> I a big small business?
>
>But you're not finding and creating any raw materials.

99% of all businesses in the world don't do that, ya knucklehead.
You don't seem to know much about the service industry, the
manufacturing industry, hell ANY industry.

Here in Florida, tourism is one of the biggest industries. What
fucking raw material are they producing? Oh, and most of the people
making money off of the tourist industry are small businesses.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-17 00:54:23 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 4:24 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:10:31 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 16, 3:41 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> >> >> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> >> >> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> >> >> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> >> >> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> >> >> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> >> >> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> >> >> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> >> >> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> >> >> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> >> >> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> >> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> >> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> >> >> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> >> >> >> >> lonesome?
>
> >> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> >> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> >> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> >> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> >> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> >> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> >> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> >> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> >> >> >> along with that.
>
> >> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> >> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> >> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> >> >> >> consider small businesses.
>
> >> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> >> >> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> >> >> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> >> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> >> >> >> false.
>
> >> >> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> >> >> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> >> >> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> >> >> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> >> >> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> >> >> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> >> >> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> >> >> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> >> >> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>
> >> >Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
> >> >themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
> >> >finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
> >> >materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
> >> >enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
> >> >profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
> >> >on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
> >> >or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
> >> >manufacturing plants with what they need.  There's no getting around
> >> >big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
> >> >to be used by others for whatever purposes.
>
> >> Uh, ok.  So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
> >> create (in your world).
>
> >> When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
> >> with their raw materials?
>
> >Sit on them till the economy picks up?
>
> LOL  So they just shut down their operations and wait until small
> businesses start creating again.  Now that's brilliant.

Hey, shit happens. A lot of big businesses got hit by the recession
and had to cut back, temporarily shut down or go into bankruptcy. You
been reading the news at all over the last year and a half? You
experienced your own downturn and with others like you also dealing
with the same suppliers you deal with, those suppliers get the pinch
too. So what do they do? Who can they sell to if there are no
buyers, or at least the same volume of buyers? Sheesh, one would
think you'd know how this works. Remind me again never to ask you to
build a house or anything for me.


> >> There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
> >> some of its needs to smaller businesses.  They need small business to
> >> survive.  Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
> >> their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
> >> wrenches...
>
> >Well, as long as there are people on this planet, there will always be
> >small businesses, and small businesses by extension will need big
> >businesses to feed them the raw materials, or even whole finished
> >products, of what they need in order to sell whatever they're
> >interested in selling to people.
>
> >> On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
> >> lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me.  So am
> >> I a big small business?
>
> >But you're not finding and creating any raw materials.
>
> 99% of all businesses in the world don't do that,  ya knucklehead.
> You don't seem to know much about the service industry, the
> manufacturing industry, hell ANY industry.

I'm not talking about 99% of businesses. I'm talking about only 25%
of businesses.

>
> Here in Florida, tourism is one of the biggest industries.  What
> fucking raw material are they producing?  Oh, and most of the people
> making money off of the tourist industry are small businesses.

Tourism is a general definition of an industry, one that comprises
hundreds or thousands of small businesses. Tourism is not a single
company like General Electric. And within tourism, all the products
that are needed by all the small businesses within that industry have
to get those products from big business, like GE, which produces light
bulbs for their offices and Dell and/or Apple, which produces the
computers the offices use. Those are the real creators of products,
the small businesses only use them for whatever purposes they need
them for to offer services or serve as resellers of those products.
You know, like what you do. You don't create anything from scratch.
The lumber people do that and pass it on to you, the steel people do
that and pass it on to you, the glass people do that and pass it on to
you. You're just a passed-onto.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-17 14:57:39 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:54:23 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 16, 4:24 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:10:31 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 16, 3:41 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
>> >> >> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
>> >> >> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
>> >> >> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
>> >> >> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>> >> >> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
>> >> >> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
>> >> >> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
>> >> >> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
>> >> >> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
>> >> >> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> >> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
>> >> >> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
>> >> >> >> >> lonesome?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
>> >> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
>> >> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>> >> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>>
>> >> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> >> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
>> >> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
>> >> >> >> along with that.
>>
>> >> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> >> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> >> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> >> >> >> consider small businesses.
>>
>> >> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
>> >> >> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
>> >> >> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
>> >> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
>> >> >> >> false.
>>
>> >> >> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
>> >> >> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>>
>> >> >> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>>
>> >> >> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
>> >> >> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
>> >> >> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
>> >> >> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
>> >> >> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
>> >> >> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>>
>> >> >Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
>> >> >themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
>> >> >finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
>> >> >materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
>> >> >enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
>> >> >profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
>> >> >on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
>> >> >or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
>> >> >manufacturing plants with what they need.  There's no getting around
>> >> >big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
>> >> >to be used by others for whatever purposes.
>>
>> >> Uh, ok.  So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
>> >> create (in your world).
>>
>> >> When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
>> >> with their raw materials?
>>
>> >Sit on them till the economy picks up?
>>
>> LOL  So they just shut down their operations and wait until small
>> businesses start creating again.  Now that's brilliant.
>
>Hey, shit happens. A lot of big businesses got hit by the recession
>and had to cut back, temporarily shut down or go into bankruptcy. You
>been reading the news at all over the last year and a half? You
>experienced your own downturn and with others like you also dealing
>with the same suppliers you deal with, those suppliers get the pinch
>too. So what do they do? Who can they sell to if there are no
>buyers, or at least the same volume of buyers? Sheesh, one would
>think you'd know how this works.

So you agree with me, without small businesses, big businesses would
fail. That was my point.

> Remind me again never to ask you to
>build a house or anything for me.

For the record, I don't touch anything under a million bucks, and
never homes. Maybe if you want to build an apartment complex or
something.

>
>
>> >> There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
>> >> some of its needs to smaller businesses.  They need small business to
>> >> survive.  Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
>> >> their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
>> >> wrenches...
>>
>> >Well, as long as there are people on this planet, there will always be
>> >small businesses, and small businesses by extension will need big
>> >businesses to feed them the raw materials, or even whole finished
>> >products, of what they need in order to sell whatever they're
>> >interested in selling to people.
>>
>> >> On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
>> >> lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me.  So am
>> >> I a big small business?
>>
>> >But you're not finding and creating any raw materials.
>>
>> 99% of all businesses in the world don't do that,  ya knucklehead.
>> You don't seem to know much about the service industry, the
>> manufacturing industry, hell ANY industry.
>
>I'm not talking about 99% of businesses. I'm talking about only 25%
>of businesses.
>
>>
>> Here in Florida, tourism is one of the biggest industries.  What
>> fucking raw material are they producing?  Oh, and most of the people
>> making money off of the tourist industry are small businesses.
>
>Tourism is a general definition of an industry, one that comprises
>hundreds or thousands of small businesses. Tourism is not a single
>company like General Electric. And within tourism, all the products
>that are needed by all the small businesses within that industry have
>to get those products from big business, like GE, which produces light
>bulbs for their offices and Dell and/or Apple, which produces the
>computers the offices use. Those are the real creators of products,

Right. Because GE goes out and mines the elements for their filaments
and melts sand to produce the glass for their light bulbs, while Dell
makes their own power supplies out of iron ore and solders together
components they built out of silicon and copper ore.

>the small businesses only use them for whatever purposes they need
>them for to offer services or serve as resellers of those products.
>You know, like what you do. You don't create anything from scratch.
>The lumber people do that and pass it on to you, the steel people do
>that and pass it on to you, the glass people do that and pass it on to
>you. You're just a passed-onto.
>
>

Go into a restaurant and order a meal, but tell them just to pass you
the raw materials that they got from some "big business" and bon
appetit...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-17 17:29:16 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 17, 9:57 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:54:23 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 16, 4:24 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:10:31 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >On Feb 16, 3:41 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> >> >> >> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> >> >> >> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> >> >> >> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> >> >> >> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> >> >> >> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> >> >> >> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> >> >> >> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> >> >> >> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> >> >> >> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> >> >> >> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> >> >> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> >> >> >> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> >> >> >> >> >> lonesome?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> >> >> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> >> >> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> >> >> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> >> >> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> >> >> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> >> >> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> >> >> >> >> along with that.
>
> >> >> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> >> >> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> >> >> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> >> >> >> >> consider small businesses.
>
> >> >> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> >> >> >> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> >> >> >> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> >> >> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> >> >> >> >> false.
>
> >> >> >> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> >> >> >> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> >> >> >> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> >> >> >> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> >> >> >> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> >> >> >> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> >> >> >> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> >> >> >> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> >> >> >> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>
> >> >> >Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
> >> >> >themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
> >> >> >finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
> >> >> >materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
> >> >> >enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
> >> >> >profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
> >> >> >on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
> >> >> >or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
> >> >> >manufacturing plants with what they need.  There's no getting around
> >> >> >big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
> >> >> >to be used by others for whatever purposes.
>
> >> >> Uh, ok.  So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
> >> >> create (in your world).
>
> >> >> When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
> >> >> with their raw materials?
>
> >> >Sit on them till the economy picks up?
>
> >> LOL  So they just shut down their operations and wait until small
> >> businesses start creating again.  Now that's brilliant.
>
> >Hey, shit happens.  A lot of big businesses got hit by the recession
> >and had to cut back, temporarily shut down or go into bankruptcy.  You
> >been reading the news at all over the last year and a half?  You
> >experienced your own downturn and with others like you also dealing
> >with the same suppliers you deal with, those suppliers get the pinch
> >too.  So what do they do?  Who can they sell to if there are no
> >buyers, or at least the same volume of buyers?  Sheesh, one would
> >think you'd know how this works.
>
> So you agree with me, without small businesses, big businesses would
> fail.  That was my point.

I already said that. In fact, I just said it again to somebody else
in another post I just put on here before this one. It's a two-way
street, but it's gotta begin somewhere, and it begins with big
business, especially if you want to get big things done in a big way
which individual small businesses can help achieve in their small
way.

>
> > Remind me again never to ask you to
> >build a house or anything for me.
>
> For the record, I don't touch anything under a million bucks, and
> never homes.  Maybe if you want to build an apartment complex or
> something.

Picky, picky, picky.


> >> >> There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
> >> >> some of its needs to smaller businesses.  They need small business to
> >> >> survive.  Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
> >> >> their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
> >> >> wrenches...
>
> >> >Well, as long as there are people on this planet, there will always be
> >> >small businesses, and small businesses by extension will need big
> >> >businesses to feed them the raw materials, or even whole finished
> >> >products, of what they need in order to sell whatever they're
> >> >interested in selling to people.
>
> >> >> On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
> >> >> lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me.  So am
> >> >> I a big small business?
>
> >> >But you're not finding and creating any raw materials.
>
> >> 99% of all businesses in the world don't do that,  ya knucklehead.
> >> You don't seem to know much about the service industry, the
> >> manufacturing industry, hell ANY industry.
>
> >I'm not talking about 99% of businesses.  I'm talking about only 25%
> >of businesses.
>
> >> Here in Florida, tourism is one of the biggest industries.  What
> >> fucking raw material are they producing?  Oh, and most of the people
> >> making money off of the tourist industry are small businesses.
>
> >Tourism is a general definition of an industry, one that comprises
> >hundreds or thousands of small businesses.  Tourism is not a single
> >company like General Electric.  And within tourism, all the products
> >that are needed by all the small businesses within that industry have
> >to get those products from big business, like GE, which produces light
> >bulbs for their offices and Dell and/or Apple, which produces the
> >computers the offices use.  Those are the real creators of products,
>
> Right.  Because GE goes out and mines the elements for their filaments
> and melts sand to produce the glass for their light bulbs, while Dell
> makes their own power supplies out of iron ore and solders together
> components they built out of silicon and copper ore.

You mean they don't? Well, they still are big business and what they
produce can very well be considered as some form of raw or basic
materials that small businesses can either resell or use for whatever
purposes of their own. Small businesses certainly aren't going to
produce their own light bulbs and, for the most part, couldn't be
bothered with building their own computers.

>
> >the small businesses only use them for whatever purposes they need
> >them for to offer services or serve as resellers of those products.
> >You know, like what you do.  You don't create anything from scratch.
> >The lumber people do that and pass it on to you, the steel people do
> >that and pass it on to you, the glass people do that and pass it on to
> >you.  You're just a passed-onto.
>
> Go into a restaurant and order a meal, but tell them just to pass you
> the raw materials that they got from some "big business" and bon
> appetit...

It's called a buffet.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-17 18:18:49 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:29:16 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 17, 9:57 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:54:23 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 16, 4:24 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:10:31 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 16, 3:41 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
>> >> >> >> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
>> >> >> >> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
>> >> >> >> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
>> >> >> >> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> >> >> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
>> >> >> >> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
>> >> >> >> >> >> lonesome?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
>> >> >> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
>> >> >> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>> >> >> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> >> >> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
>> >> >> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
>> >> >> >> >> along with that.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> >> >> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> >> >> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> >> >> >> >> consider small businesses.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
>> >> >> >> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
>> >> >> >> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
>> >> >> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
>> >> >> >> >> false.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
>> >> >> >> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>>
>> >> >> >> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>>
>> >> >> >> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
>> >> >> >> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
>> >> >> >> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
>> >> >> >> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
>> >> >> >> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
>> >> >> >> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>>
>> >> >> >Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
>> >> >> >themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
>> >> >> >finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
>> >> >> >materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
>> >> >> >enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
>> >> >> >profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
>> >> >> >on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
>> >> >> >or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
>> >> >> >manufacturing plants with what they need.  There's no getting around
>> >> >> >big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
>> >> >> >to be used by others for whatever purposes.
>>
>> >> >> Uh, ok.  So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
>> >> >> create (in your world).
>>
>> >> >> When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
>> >> >> with their raw materials?
>>
>> >> >Sit on them till the economy picks up?
>>
>> >> LOL  So they just shut down their operations and wait until small
>> >> businesses start creating again.  Now that's brilliant.
>>
>> >Hey, shit happens.  A lot of big businesses got hit by the recession
>> >and had to cut back, temporarily shut down or go into bankruptcy.  You
>> >been reading the news at all over the last year and a half?  You
>> >experienced your own downturn and with others like you also dealing
>> >with the same suppliers you deal with, those suppliers get the pinch
>> >too.  So what do they do?  Who can they sell to if there are no
>> >buyers, or at least the same volume of buyers?  Sheesh, one would
>> >think you'd know how this works.
>>
>> So you agree with me, without small businesses, big businesses would
>> fail.  That was my point.
>
>I already said that. In fact, I just said it again to somebody else
>in another post I just put on here before this one. It's a two-way
>street, but it's gotta begin somewhere, and it begins with big
>business, especially if you want to get big things done in a big way
>which individual small businesses can help achieve in their small
>way.

Right. So all of these big businesses started AS big businesses.
After all, it has to start somewhere.

>
>>
>> > Remind me again never to ask you to
>> >build a house or anything for me.
>>
>> For the record, I don't touch anything under a million bucks, and
>> never homes.  Maybe if you want to build an apartment complex or
>> something.
>
>Picky, picky, picky.

Matter of economics. As for high end homes, I don't need that
nightmare. My friend does that (or did it up until about 3 months
ago) and he's told me horror stories, most involving the wives.

>
>
>> >> >> There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
>> >> >> some of its needs to smaller businesses.  They need small business to
>> >> >> survive.  Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
>> >> >> their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
>> >> >> wrenches...
>>
>> >> >Well, as long as there are people on this planet, there will always be
>> >> >small businesses, and small businesses by extension will need big
>> >> >businesses to feed them the raw materials, or even whole finished
>> >> >products, of what they need in order to sell whatever they're
>> >> >interested in selling to people.
>>
>> >> >> On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
>> >> >> lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me.  So am
>> >> >> I a big small business?
>>
>> >> >But you're not finding and creating any raw materials.
>>
>> >> 99% of all businesses in the world don't do that,  ya knucklehead.
>> >> You don't seem to know much about the service industry, the
>> >> manufacturing industry, hell ANY industry.
>>
>> >I'm not talking about 99% of businesses.  I'm talking about only 25%
>> >of businesses.
>>
>> >> Here in Florida, tourism is one of the biggest industries.  What
>> >> fucking raw material are they producing?  Oh, and most of the people
>> >> making money off of the tourist industry are small businesses.
>>
>> >Tourism is a general definition of an industry, one that comprises
>> >hundreds or thousands of small businesses.  Tourism is not a single
>> >company like General Electric.  And within tourism, all the products
>> >that are needed by all the small businesses within that industry have
>> >to get those products from big business, like GE, which produces light
>> >bulbs for their offices and Dell and/or Apple, which produces the
>> >computers the offices use.  Those are the real creators of products,
>>
>> Right.  Because GE goes out and mines the elements for their filaments
>> and melts sand to produce the glass for their light bulbs, while Dell
>> makes their own power supplies out of iron ore and solders together
>> components they built out of silicon and copper ore.
>
>You mean they don't? Well, they still are big business and what they
>produce can very well be considered as some form of raw or basic
>materials that small businesses can either resell or use for whatever
>purposes of their own. Small businesses certainly aren't going to
>produce their own light bulbs and, for the most part, couldn't be
>bothered with building their own computers.

If you have a Dell box, open it up and check out the components. Very
few or specialized computers have proprietary architecture from the
manufacturer. In most cases the box is the only thing that the
company "makes", and the rest are components that are plugged together
from a gazillion different smaller companies, probably procured by a
small number of smaller supply houses, assembled by monkeys.

>>
>> >the small businesses only use them for whatever purposes they need
>> >them for to offer services or serve as resellers of those products.
>> >You know, like what you do.  You don't create anything from scratch.
>> >The lumber people do that and pass it on to you, the steel people do
>> >that and pass it on to you, the glass people do that and pass it on to
>> >you.  You're just a passed-onto.
>>
>> Go into a restaurant and order a meal, but tell them just to pass you
>> the raw materials that they got from some "big business" and bon
>> appetit...
>
>It's called a buffet.
>

--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-17 20:37:43 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 17, 1:18 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:29:16 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >On Feb 17, 9:57 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:54:23 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >On Feb 16, 4:24 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:10:31 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >On Feb 16, 3:41 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> >> >> >> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> >> >> >> >> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> >> >> >> >> >> >> lonesome?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> >> >> >> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> >> >> >> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> >> >> >> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> >> >> >> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> >> >> >> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> >> >> >> >> >> along with that.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> >> >> >> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> >> >> >> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> >> >> >> >> >> consider small businesses.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> >> >> >> >> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> >> >> >> >> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> >> >> >> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> >> >> >> >> >> false.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> >> >> >> >> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> >> >> >> >> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> >> >> >> >> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> >> >> >> >> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> >> >> >> >> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> >> >> >> >> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> >> >> >> >> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> >> >> >> >> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>
> >> >> >> >Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
> >> >> >> >themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
> >> >> >> >finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
> >> >> >> >materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
> >> >> >> >enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
> >> >> >> >profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
> >> >> >> >on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
> >> >> >> >or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
> >> >> >> >manufacturing plants with what they need.  There's no getting around
> >> >> >> >big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
> >> >> >> >to be used by others for whatever purposes.
>
> >> >> >> Uh, ok.  So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
> >> >> >> create (in your world).
>
> >> >> >> When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
> >> >> >> with their raw materials?
>
> >> >> >Sit on them till the economy picks up?
>
> >> >> LOL  So they just shut down their operations and wait until small
> >> >> businesses start creating again.  Now that's brilliant.
>
> >> >Hey, shit happens.  A lot of big businesses got hit by the recession
> >> >and had to cut back, temporarily shut down or go into bankruptcy.  You
> >> >been reading the news at all over the last year and a half?  You
> >> >experienced your own downturn and with others like you also dealing
> >> >with the same suppliers you deal with, those suppliers get the pinch
> >> >too.  So what do they do?  Who can they sell to if there are no
> >> >buyers, or at least the same volume of buyers?  Sheesh, one would
> >> >think you'd know how this works.
>
> >> So you agree with me, without small businesses, big businesses would
> >> fail.  That was my point.
>
> >I already said that.  In fact, I just said it again to somebody else
> >in another post I just put on here before this one.  It's a two-way
> >street, but it's gotta begin somewhere, and it begins with big
> >business, especially if you want to get big things done in a big way
> >which individual small businesses can help achieve in their small
> >way.
>
> Right.  So all of these big businesses started AS big businesses.
> After all, it has to start somewhere.

Well, they certainly started off with much, much more capital than a
small business ever can. Sometimes it would be with an investment of
a lot of the personal wealth of the founder of that business. Here's
the most basic analogy. You just have to go to the prehistoric era.
There are two guys. One's huge, the other's a bit scrawny. Somebody
has to go and cut a tree down to build a home. Who's really going to
get the job done and do it efficiently and in quicker time? The one
who's huge, of course. Meanwhile, the scrawny guy just sits and waits
until the job is done and when the raw material is brought in, he'd
then have enough strength to help build the house. There's always
somebody big in the picture to get what's first needed in order for
everybody else to benefit from it.

> >> > Remind me again never to ask you to
> >> >build a house or anything for me.
>
> >> For the record, I don't touch anything under a million bucks, and
> >> never homes.  Maybe if you want to build an apartment complex or
> >> something.
>
> >Picky, picky, picky.
>
> Matter of economics.  As for high end homes, I don't need that
> nightmare.  My friend does that (or did it up until about 3 months
> ago) and he's told me horror stories, most involving the wives.

Is that being sexist of you? But it's likely true.


> >> >> >> There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
> >> >> >> some of its needs to smaller businesses.  They need small business to
> >> >> >> survive.  Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
> >> >> >> their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
> >> >> >> wrenches...
>
> >> >> >Well, as long as there are people on this planet, there will always be
> >> >> >small businesses, and small businesses by extension will need big
> >> >> >businesses to feed them the raw materials, or even whole finished
> >> >> >products, of what they need in order to sell whatever they're
> >> >> >interested in selling to people.
>
> >> >> >> On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
> >> >> >> lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me.  So am
> >> >> >> I a big small business?
>
> >> >> >But you're not finding and creating any raw materials.
>
> >> >> 99% of all businesses in the world don't do that,  ya knucklehead.
> >> >> You don't seem to know much about the service industry, the
> >> >> manufacturing industry, hell ANY industry.
>
> >> >I'm not talking about 99% of businesses.  I'm talking about only 25%
> >> >of businesses.
>
> >> >> Here in Florida, tourism is one of the biggest industries.  What
> >> >> fucking raw material are they producing?  Oh, and most of the people
> >> >> making money off of the tourist industry are small businesses.
>
> >> >Tourism is a general definition of an industry, one that comprises
> >> >hundreds or thousands of small businesses.  Tourism is not a single
> >> >company like General Electric.  And within tourism, all the products
> >> >that are needed by all the small businesses within that industry have
> >> >to get those products from big business, like GE, which produces light
> >> >bulbs for their offices and Dell and/or Apple, which produces the
> >> >computers the offices use.  Those are the real creators of products,
>
> >> Right.  Because GE goes out and mines the elements for their filaments
> >> and melts sand to produce the glass for their light bulbs, while Dell
> >> makes their own power supplies out of iron ore and solders together
> >> components they built out of silicon and copper ore.
>
> >You mean they don't?  Well, they still are big business and what they
> >produce can very well be considered as some form of raw or basic
> >materials that small businesses can either resell or use for whatever
> >purposes of their own.  Small businesses certainly aren't going to
> >produce their own light bulbs and, for the most part, couldn't be
> >bothered with building their own computers.
>
> If you have a Dell box, open it up and check out the components.  Very
> few or specialized computers have proprietary architecture from the
> manufacturer.  In most cases the box is the only thing that the
> company "makes", and the rest are components that are plugged together
> from a gazillion different smaller companies, probably procured by a
> small number of smaller supply houses, assembled by monkeys.

This is true. But the fact of the matter is that small businesses go
to Dell for their computers, not those other businesses. And all
those pieces that come with a computer all come from large businesses,
like IBM, Sun, Hitachi, Intel, Seagate, etc., to which small
businesses would have to go to anyway if they wanted to replace
defective parts in the computer they got from Dell.


> >> >the small businesses only use them for whatever purposes they need
> >> >them for to offer services or serve as resellers of those products.
> >> >You know, like what you do.  You don't create anything from scratch.
> >> >The lumber people do that and pass it on to you, the steel people do
> >> >that and pass it on to you, the glass people do that and pass it on to
> >> >you.  You're just a passed-onto.
>
> >> Go into a restaurant and order a meal, but tell them just to pass you
> >> the raw materials that they got from some "big business" and bon
> >> appetit...
>
> >It's called a buffet.
>
> --
> lab~rat  >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-18 14:15:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:37:43 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 17, 1:18 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:29:16 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >On Feb 17, 9:57 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:54:23 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 16, 4:24 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:10:31 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 16, 3:41 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> lonesome?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
>> >> >> >> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
>> >> >> >> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>> >> >> >> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> >> >> >> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
>> >> >> >> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
>> >> >> >> >> >> along with that.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> >> >> >> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> >> >> >> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> >> >> >> >> >> consider small businesses.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
>> >> >> >> >> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
>> >> >> >> >> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
>> >> >> >> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
>> >> >> >> >> >> false.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
>> >> >> >> >> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
>> >> >> >> >> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
>> >> >> >> >> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
>> >> >> >> >> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
>> >> >> >> >> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
>> >> >> >> >> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
>> >> >> >> >themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
>> >> >> >> >finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
>> >> >> >> >materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
>> >> >> >> >enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
>> >> >> >> >profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
>> >> >> >> >on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
>> >> >> >> >or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
>> >> >> >> >manufacturing plants with what they need.  There's no getting around
>> >> >> >> >big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
>> >> >> >> >to be used by others for whatever purposes.
>>
>> >> >> >> Uh, ok.  So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
>> >> >> >> create (in your world).
>>
>> >> >> >> When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
>> >> >> >> with their raw materials?
>>
>> >> >> >Sit on them till the economy picks up?
>>
>> >> >> LOL  So they just shut down their operations and wait until small
>> >> >> businesses start creating again.  Now that's brilliant.
>>
>> >> >Hey, shit happens.  A lot of big businesses got hit by the recession
>> >> >and had to cut back, temporarily shut down or go into bankruptcy.  You
>> >> >been reading the news at all over the last year and a half?  You
>> >> >experienced your own downturn and with others like you also dealing
>> >> >with the same suppliers you deal with, those suppliers get the pinch
>> >> >too.  So what do they do?  Who can they sell to if there are no
>> >> >buyers, or at least the same volume of buyers?  Sheesh, one would
>> >> >think you'd know how this works.
>>
>> >> So you agree with me, without small businesses, big businesses would
>> >> fail.  That was my point.
>>
>> >I already said that.  In fact, I just said it again to somebody else
>> >in another post I just put on here before this one.  It's a two-way
>> >street, but it's gotta begin somewhere, and it begins with big
>> >business, especially if you want to get big things done in a big way
>> >which individual small businesses can help achieve in their small
>> >way.
>>
>> Right.  So all of these big businesses started AS big businesses.
>> After all, it has to start somewhere.
>
>Well, they certainly started off with much, much more capital than a
>small business ever can. Sometimes it would be with an investment of
>a lot of the personal wealth of the founder of that business.

And most of the time it's a small business or number of small
businesses that merge and grow.

> Here's
>the most basic analogy. You just have to go to the prehistoric era.
>There are two guys. One's huge, the other's a bit scrawny. Somebody
>has to go and cut a tree down to build a home. Who's really going to
>get the job done and do it efficiently and in quicker time? The one
>who's huge, of course. Meanwhile, the scrawny guy just sits and waits
>until the job is done and when the raw material is brought in, he'd
>then have enough strength to help build the house. There's always
>somebody big in the picture to get what's first needed in order for
>everybody else to benefit from it.

Here's another one for you, my company is small. I'm capable of
building $200,000 office buildings, but have the capacity to bond
much larger jobs. Unfortunately, as small as my company is, it's too
large from an overhead standpoint to sustain itself on 200k jobs, and
I can't compete with the guy and a truck and a few carpenters.

OTOH, when I bid 3 to 4 million dollar jobs, my overhead is generally
lower than the other contractors in that class, so I have an
advantage.

>
>> >> > Remind me again never to ask you to
>> >> >build a house or anything for me.
>>
>> >> For the record, I don't touch anything under a million bucks, and
>> >> never homes.  Maybe if you want to build an apartment complex or
>> >> something.
>>
>> >Picky, picky, picky.
>>
>> Matter of economics.  As for high end homes, I don't need that
>> nightmare.  My friend does that (or did it up until about 3 months
>> ago) and he's told me horror stories, most involving the wives.
>
>Is that being sexist of you? But it's likely true.

It's anecdotal reasoning. The fact of the matter is that you can only
have one point of contact when working for an owner, and that's where
the trouble comes in with couples. Generally, the man makes the deal
and the problem comes when the wife starts making changes behind the
husband's back.

>
>
>> >> >> >> There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
>> >> >> >> some of its needs to smaller businesses.  They need small business to
>> >> >> >> survive.  Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
>> >> >> >> their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
>> >> >> >> wrenches...
>>
>> >> >> >Well, as long as there are people on this planet, there will always be
>> >> >> >small businesses, and small businesses by extension will need big
>> >> >> >businesses to feed them the raw materials, or even whole finished
>> >> >> >products, of what they need in order to sell whatever they're
>> >> >> >interested in selling to people.
>>
>> >> >> >> On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
>> >> >> >> lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me.  So am
>> >> >> >> I a big small business?
>>
>> >> >> >But you're not finding and creating any raw materials.
>>
>> >> >> 99% of all businesses in the world don't do that,  ya knucklehead.
>> >> >> You don't seem to know much about the service industry, the
>> >> >> manufacturing industry, hell ANY industry.
>>
>> >> >I'm not talking about 99% of businesses.  I'm talking about only 25%
>> >> >of businesses.
>>
>> >> >> Here in Florida, tourism is one of the biggest industries.  What
>> >> >> fucking raw material are they producing?  Oh, and most of the people
>> >> >> making money off of the tourist industry are small businesses.
>>
>> >> >Tourism is a general definition of an industry, one that comprises
>> >> >hundreds or thousands of small businesses.  Tourism is not a single
>> >> >company like General Electric.  And within tourism, all the products
>> >> >that are needed by all the small businesses within that industry have
>> >> >to get those products from big business, like GE, which produces light
>> >> >bulbs for their offices and Dell and/or Apple, which produces the
>> >> >computers the offices use.  Those are the real creators of products,
>>
>> >> Right.  Because GE goes out and mines the elements for their filaments
>> >> and melts sand to produce the glass for their light bulbs, while Dell
>> >> makes their own power supplies out of iron ore and solders together
>> >> components they built out of silicon and copper ore.
>>
>> >You mean they don't?  Well, they still are big business and what they
>> >produce can very well be considered as some form of raw or basic
>> >materials that small businesses can either resell or use for whatever
>> >purposes of their own.  Small businesses certainly aren't going to
>> >produce their own light bulbs and, for the most part, couldn't be
>> >bothered with building their own computers.
>>
>> If you have a Dell box, open it up and check out the components.  Very
>> few or specialized computers have proprietary architecture from the
>> manufacturer.  In most cases the box is the only thing that the
>> company "makes", and the rest are components that are plugged together
>> from a gazillion different smaller companies, probably procured by a
>> small number of smaller supply houses, assembled by monkeys.
>
>This is true. But the fact of the matter is that small businesses go
>to Dell for their computers, not those other businesses. And all
>those pieces that come with a computer all come from large businesses,
>like IBM, Sun, Hitachi, Intel, Seagate, etc., to which small
>businesses would have to go to anyway if they wanted to replace
>defective parts in the computer they got from Dell.
>
>
>> >> >the small businesses only use them for whatever purposes they need
>> >> >them for to offer services or serve as resellers of those products.
>> >> >You know, like what you do.  You don't create anything from scratch.
>> >> >The lumber people do that and pass it on to you, the steel people do
>> >> >that and pass it on to you, the glass people do that and pass it on to
>> >> >you.  You're just a passed-onto.
>>
>> >> Go into a restaurant and order a meal, but tell them just to pass you
>> >> the raw materials that they got from some "big business" and bon
>> >> appetit...
>>
>> >It's called a buffet.
>>
>> --
>> lab~rat  >:-)
>> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
cop welfare
2010-02-17 04:23:58 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 2:41 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> >> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> >> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> >> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> >> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> >> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> >> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> >> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> >> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> >> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> >> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> >> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> >> >> >> lonesome?
>
> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> >> >> along with that.
>
> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> >> >> consider small businesses.
>
> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> >> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> >> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> >> >> false.
>
> >> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> >> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> >> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> >> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> >> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> >> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> >> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> >> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> >> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>
> >Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
> >themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
> >finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
> >materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
> >enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
> >profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
> >on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
> >or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
> >manufacturing plants with what they need.  There's no getting around
> >big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
> >to be used by others for whatever purposes.
>
> Uh, ok.  So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
> create (in your world).
>
> When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
> with their raw materials?
>
> There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
> some of its needs to smaller businesses.  They need small business to
> survive.  Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
> their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
> wrenches...
>
> On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
> lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me.  So am
> I a big small business?
> --
> lab~rat  >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

i can't figure it out.
do you have some ideological need to blather on about small biz being
superior to big biz?
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-17 14:58:15 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:23:58 -0800 (PST), cop welfare
<***@gmail.com> puked:

>On Feb 16, 2:41 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
>> >> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
>> >> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
>> >> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
>> >> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>> >> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
>> >> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
>> >> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
>> >> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
>> >> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
>> >> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>>
>> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
>> >> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
>> >> >> >> lonesome?
>>
>> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
>> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
>> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>>
>> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
>> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
>> >> >> along with that.
>>
>> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> >> >> consider small businesses.
>>
>> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
>> >> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
>> >> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
>> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
>> >> >> false.
>>
>> >> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
>> >> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>>
>> >> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>>
>> >> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
>> >> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
>> >> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
>> >> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
>> >> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
>> >> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>>
>> >Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
>> >themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
>> >finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
>> >materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
>> >enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
>> >profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
>> >on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
>> >or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
>> >manufacturing plants with what they need.  There's no getting around
>> >big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
>> >to be used by others for whatever purposes.
>>
>> Uh, ok.  So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
>> create (in your world).
>>
>> When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
>> with their raw materials?
>>
>> There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
>> some of its needs to smaller businesses.  They need small business to
>> survive.  Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
>> their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
>> wrenches...
>>
>> On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
>> lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me.  So am
>> I a big small business?
>> --
>> lab~rat  >:-)
>> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>i can't figure it out.
>do you have some ideological need to blather on about small biz being
>superior to big biz?

Do you think that's what this discussion is about?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
cop welfare
2010-02-17 15:49:14 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 17, 8:58 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:23:58 -0800 (PST), cop welfare
> <***@gmail.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 16, 2:41 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> >> >> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> >> >> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> >> >> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> >> >> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> >> >> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> >> >> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> >> >> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> >> >> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> >> >> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> >> >> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> >> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> >> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> >> >> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> >> >> >> >> lonesome?
>
> >> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> >> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> >> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> >> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> >> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> >> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> >> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> >> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> >> >> >> along with that.
>
> >> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> >> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> >> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> >> >> >> consider small businesses.
>
> >> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> >> >> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> >> >> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> >> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> >> >> >> false.
>
> >> >> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> >> >> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> >> >> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> >> >> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> >> >> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> >> >> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> >> >> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> >> >> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> >> >> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>
> >> >Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
> >> >themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
> >> >finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
> >> >materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
> >> >enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
> >> >profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
> >> >on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
> >> >or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
> >> >manufacturing plants with what they need.  There's no getting around
> >> >big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
> >> >to be used by others for whatever purposes.
>
> >> Uh, ok.  So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
> >> create (in your world).
>
> >> When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
> >> with their raw materials?
>
> >> There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
> >> some of its needs to smaller businesses.  They need small business to
> >> survive.  Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
> >> their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
> >> wrenches...
>
> >> On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
> >> lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me.  So am
> >> I a big small business?
> >> --
> >> lab~rat  >:-)
> >> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >i can't figure it out.
> >do you have some ideological need to blather on about small biz being
> >superior to big biz?
>
> Do you think that's what this discussion is about?
> --
> lab~rat  >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text

"Do you think that's what this discussion is about?"

pretty much, yes.
or were you social-networking

.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-17 16:05:24 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:49:14 -0800 (PST), cop welfare
<***@gmail.com> puked:

>On Feb 17, 8:58 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:23:58 -0800 (PST), cop welfare
>> <***@gmail.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 16, 2:41 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
>> >> >> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
>> >> >> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
>> >> >> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
>> >> >> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>> >> >> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
>> >> >> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
>> >> >> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
>> >> >> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
>> >> >> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
>> >> >> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> >> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
>> >> >> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
>> >> >> >> >> lonesome?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
>> >> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
>> >> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>> >> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>>
>> >> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> >> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
>> >> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
>> >> >> >> along with that.
>>
>> >> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> >> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> >> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> >> >> >> consider small businesses.
>>
>> >> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
>> >> >> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
>> >> >> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
>> >> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
>> >> >> >> false.
>>
>> >> >> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
>> >> >> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>>
>> >> >> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>>
>> >> >> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
>> >> >> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
>> >> >> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
>> >> >> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
>> >> >> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
>> >> >> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>>
>> >> >Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
>> >> >themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
>> >> >finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
>> >> >materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
>> >> >enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
>> >> >profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
>> >> >on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
>> >> >or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
>> >> >manufacturing plants with what they need.  There's no getting around
>> >> >big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
>> >> >to be used by others for whatever purposes.
>>
>> >> Uh, ok.  So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
>> >> create (in your world).
>>
>> >> When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
>> >> with their raw materials?
>>
>> >> There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
>> >> some of its needs to smaller businesses.  They need small business to
>> >> survive.  Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
>> >> their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
>> >> wrenches...
>>
>> >> On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
>> >> lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me.  So am
>> >> I a big small business?
>> >> --
>> >> lab~rat  >:-)
>> >> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >i can't figure it out.
>> >do you have some ideological need to blather on about small biz being
>> >superior to big biz?
>>
>> Do you think that's what this discussion is about?
>> --
>> lab~rat  >:-)
>> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text
>
>"Do you think that's what this discussion is about?"
>
> pretty much, yes.
>or were you social-networking
>
>.

There was a whole bit in there about raw materials. Other than that I
guess it was social networking.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
wy
2010-02-17 17:30:15 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 17, 9:58 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:23:58 -0800 (PST), cop welfare
> <***@gmail.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 16, 2:41 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> >> >> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> >> >> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> >> >> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> >> >> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> >> >> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> >> >> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> >> >> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> >> >> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> >> >> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> >> >> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> >> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> >> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> >> >> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> >> >> >> >> lonesome?
>
> >> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> >> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> >> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> >> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> >> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> >> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> >> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> >> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> >> >> >> along with that.
>
> >> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> >> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> >> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> >> >> >> consider small businesses.
>
> >> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> >> >> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> >> >> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> >> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> >> >> >> false.
>
> >> >> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> >> >> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> >> >> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> >> >> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> >> >> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> >> >> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> >> >> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> >> >> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> >> >> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>
> >> >Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
> >> >themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
> >> >finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
> >> >materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
> >> >enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
> >> >profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
> >> >on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
> >> >or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
> >> >manufacturing plants with what they need.  There's no getting around
> >> >big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
> >> >to be used by others for whatever purposes.
>
> >> Uh, ok.  So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
> >> create (in your world).
>
> >> When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
> >> with their raw materials?
>
> >> There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
> >> some of its needs to smaller businesses.  They need small business to
> >> survive.  Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
> >> their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
> >> wrenches...
>
> >> On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
> >> lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me.  So am
> >> I a big small business?
> >> --
> >> lab~rat  >:-)
> >> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >i can't figure it out.
> >do you have some ideological need to blather on about small biz being
> >superior to big biz?
>
> Do you think that's what this discussion is about?

It's really supposed to be about France being the best place to live
in.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-17 18:19:23 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:30:15 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 17, 9:58 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:23:58 -0800 (PST), cop welfare
>> <***@gmail.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 16, 2:41 pm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
>> >> >> >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
>> >> >> >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
>> >> >> >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
>> >> >> >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>> >> >> >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
>> >> >> >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
>> >> >> >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
>> >> >> >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
>> >> >> >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
>> >> >> >> >> >nothing to sell.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> >> >> >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
>> >> >> >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
>> >> >> >> >> lonesome?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Positively brilliant.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
>> >> >> >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
>> >> >> >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
>> >> >> >> >can make that happen for you.
>>
>> >> >> >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
>> >> >> >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
>> >> >> >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
>> >> >> >> along with that.
>>
>> >> >> >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
>> >> >> >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
>> >> >> >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
>> >> >> >> consider small businesses.
>>
>> >> >> >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
>> >> >> >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
>> >> >> >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
>> >> >> >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
>> >> >> >> false.
>>
>> >> >> >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
>> >> >> >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>>
>> >> >> No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>>
>> >> >> Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
>> >> >> manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
>> >> >> outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
>> >> >> parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
>> >> >> smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
>> >> >> (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
>>
>> >> >Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
>> >> >themselves, which is highly doubtful due to the expense involved in
>> >> >finding, shipping and possibly treating or preparing those raw
>> >> >materials to be usable as raw materials, never mind having a large
>> >> >enough client base to support their operations on an ongoing and
>> >> >profitable basis, then those small businesses are actually dependent
>> >> >on large businesses for all those raw materials that they then prepare
>> >> >or convert into usable or other materials in order to supply
>> >> >manufacturing plants with what they need.  There's no getting around
>> >> >big business being the dominant factor in the creation of raw products
>> >> >to be used by others for whatever purposes.
>>
>> >> Uh, ok.  So big business makes the materials for small businesses to
>> >> create (in your world).
>>
>> >> When small businesses stop creating, what do the big businesses do
>> >> with their raw materials?
>>
>> >> There isn't a big company in existence that doesn't outsource at least
>> >> some of its needs to smaller businesses.  They need small business to
>> >> survive.  Unless they're creating their own stationary and assembling
>> >> their own toilet paper for the workers and manufacturing pencils or
>> >> wrenches...
>>
>> >> On the other hand, as much as I'm a small business, I subcontract a
>> >> lot of specialized trades, mostly to companies smaller than me.  So am
>> >> I a big small business?
>> >> --
>> >> lab~rat  >:-)
>> >> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >i can't figure it out.
>> >do you have some ideological need to blather on about small biz being
>> >superior to big biz?
>>
>> Do you think that's what this discussion is about?
>
>It's really supposed to be about France being the best place to live
>in.

Well, France is smaller than the US, so I guess the US is better...
;)
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
KK
2010-02-16 20:50:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800, wy wrote:

> Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
> themselves, (...) those small businesses are actually dependent on
> large businesses

Your assumption that only large businesses make raw materials is
incorrect. If it weren't, it remains irrelevant.
wy
2010-02-17 00:31:43 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 3:50 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800, wy wrote:
> > Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
> > themselves, (...) those small businesses are actually dependent on
> > large businesses
>
> Your assumption that only large businesses make raw materials is
> incorrect.  If it weren't, it remains irrelevant.

I didn't say only, I said most of the businesses that do are large
businesses.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-17 14:58:40 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:31:43 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:

>On Feb 16, 3:50 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800, wy wrote:
>> > Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
>> > themselves, (...) those small businesses are actually dependent on
>> > large businesses
>>
>> Your assumption that only large businesses make raw materials is
>> incorrect.  If it weren't, it remains irrelevant.
>
>I didn't say only, I said most of the businesses that do are large
>businesses.

Is that your entire point?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
KK
2010-02-17 17:58:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:31:43 -0800, wy wrote:

> On Feb 16, 3:50 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:26:57 -0800, wy wrote:
>> > Unless those small businesses harness and form the raw materials
>> > themselves, (...) those small businesses are actually dependent on
>> > large businesses
>>
>> Your assumption that only large businesses make raw materials is
>> incorrect.  If it weren't, it remains irrelevant.
>
> I didn't say only, I said most of the businesses that do are large
> businesses.

I don't know that that's true. And *again* - if it is, it's irrelevant.
KK
2010-02-16 12:52:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800, wy wrote:

> On Feb 15, 8:31 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> You're a sheep. ÊSmall business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs,
>> >> aren't monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil"
>> >> and justify any manner of fucking you wish: Êthey're people.
>> >> ÊIndividuals who have created something out of nothing, with their
>> >> own capital, which amog other things, provides livelihood for its
>> >> employees.
>>
>> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
>> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
>> >business.  You think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
>> >in that store he's running?  All that stuff he sells came from other
>> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
>> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
>> >nothing to sell.
>>
>> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
>> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
>> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
>> lonesome?
>>
>> Positively brilliant.
>
> Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? No. Without those
> things, you'd have no job. In order for your end of the 75% of small
> businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> can make that happen for you.

So you've made the observation that practically all business consumes as
well as produces? Astonishing.
lab~rat >:-)
2010-02-15 13:29:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:32:49 GMT, KK <***@furburger.net> puked:

>> Actually,
>> unemployment is a little less in France than in the U.S. right now and
>> still, with the level being almost equal between them, France can
>> deliver the kind of universal health coverage the U.S. is unable to do.
>> Screw businesses
>
>You're a sheep. Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
>monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
>any manner of fucking you wish: they're people. Individuals who have
>created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
>other things, provides livelihood for its employees.

He's the kind of person that gets fired first, so he hates
employers...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
jane
2010-02-11 23:03:11 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 11, 5:20 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 4:39 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 +0000, Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello Pommes
>
> > Frites! wrote:
> > > Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid maternity
> > > leave from her company for the birth. She can take another seven months
> > > off beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if she wants, with her job
> > > guaranteed under French law.
>
> > Well, that's just great if you're her.  But what if you're her employer?
>
> > That law fucks the businesses that hire people and create jobs.  And it
> > fucks small business disproportionately.
>
> Why are you so concerned about businesses?  The fact of the matter is
> that businesses are doing no better nor worse in France than in the
> U.S., if you're going to measure it according to unemployment.
> Actually, unemployment is a little less in France than in the U.S.
> right now and still, with the level being almost equal between them,
> France can deliver the kind of universal health coverage the U.S. is
> unable to do.  Screw businesses, just figure out why it is that with
> practically the same employment climate in both countries, you don't
> have to worry about health care in France but it's a big, big problem
> for people in America.   And once you figure that out, maybe you'll
> get down to what the real root of the problem is and not what right-
> wingers want you to believe it is.
>
>
>
> > Government can't give to one person without taking from another.  
>
> Neither can business.  Think about it.

France as a screwed up view of business. They thought they could
reduce unemployment by dictating a maximum of 35 hours work per week.
They had "job police" who would patrol business parking lots to
ensure that people weren't working more than 35 hour.

As for "affordable" health care, a GP makes $55,000/yr. We have
plumbers in this country who make more than that. How would you feel
if our government tried to dictated wage scales?


Jane.
wy
2010-02-11 23:49:20 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 11, 6:03 pm, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 5:20 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 4:39 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 +0000, Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello Pommes
>
> > > Frites! wrote:
> > > > Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid maternity
> > > > leave from her company for the birth. She can take another seven months
> > > > off beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if she wants, with her job
> > > > guaranteed under French law.
>
> > > Well, that's just great if you're her.  But what if you're her employer?
>
> > > That law fucks the businesses that hire people and create jobs.  And it
> > > fucks small business disproportionately.
>
> > Why are you so concerned about businesses?  The fact of the matter is
> > that businesses are doing no better nor worse in France than in the
> > U.S., if you're going to measure it according to unemployment.
> > Actually, unemployment is a little less in France than in the U.S.
> > right now and still, with the level being almost equal between them,
> > France can deliver the kind of universal health coverage the U.S. is
> > unable to do.  Screw businesses, just figure out why it is that with
> > practically the same employment climate in both countries, you don't
> > have to worry about health care in France but it's a big, big problem
> > for people in America.   And once you figure that out, maybe you'll
> > get down to what the real root of the problem is and not what right-
> > wingers want you to believe it is.
>
> > > Government can't give to one person without taking from another.  
>
> > Neither can business.  Think about it.
>
> France as a screwed up view of business.  They thought they could
> reduce unemployment by dictating a maximum of 35 hours work per week.
> They had "job police" who would patrol business parking lots  to
> ensure that people weren't working more than 35 hour.

And what's your point? You've got something against not working more
than 35 hours per week? People do have family lives to attend to, you
know, picking up kids from daycares, dealing with school meetings,
getting together with friends and going out for some entertainment
just to break up the monotony of work, maybe having to take look after
parents or kids with debilitating health issues, there's a whole other
life for people to care of besides their work life. This is something
you're against? Yas, massuh, anytin' ya say massuh.

>
> As for "affordable" health care, a GP makes $55,000/yr.  We have
> plumbers in this country who make more than that.  How would you feel
> if our government tried to dictated wage scales?

I think your brain is still stuck in the 70s with that $55 grand a
year. It's more like this:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Family_or_General_Practitioner/Salary

Here in Canada GP's average $200 grand a year under a universal single
payer system, in which everybody is covered no ands, ifs or buts about
it. Not bad, huh? Gee, I wonder how that happens and you Americans
are just too clueless to figure it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
jane
2010-02-12 02:42:05 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 11, 6:49 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 6:03 pm, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 5:20 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 11, 4:39 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 +0000, Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello Pommes
>
> > > > Frites! wrote:
> > > > > Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid maternity
> > > > > leave from her company for the birth. She can take another seven months
> > > > > off beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if she wants, with her job
> > > > > guaranteed under French law.
>
> > > > Well, that's just great if you're her.  But what if you're her employer?
>
> > > > That law fucks the businesses that hire people and create jobs.  And it
> > > > fucks small business disproportionately.
>
> > > Why are you so concerned about businesses?  The fact of the matter is
> > > that businesses are doing no better nor worse in France than in the
> > > U.S., if you're going to measure it according to unemployment.
> > > Actually, unemployment is a little less in France than in the U.S.
> > > right now and still, with the level being almost equal between them,
> > > France can deliver the kind of universal health coverage the U.S. is
> > > unable to do.  Screw businesses, just figure out why it is that with
> > > practically the same employment climate in both countries, you don't
> > > have to worry about health care in France but it's a big, big problem
> > > for people in America.   And once you figure that out, maybe you'll
> > > get down to what the real root of the problem is and not what right-
> > > wingers want you to believe it is.
>
> > > > Government can't give to one person without taking from another.  
>
> > > Neither can business.  Think about it.
>
> > France as a screwed up view of business.  They thought they could
> > reduce unemployment by dictating a maximum of 35 hours work per week.
> > They had "job police" who would patrol business parking lots  to
> > ensure that people weren't working more than 35 hour.
>
> And what's your point?  You've got something against not working more
> than 35 hours per week?  People do have family lives to attend to, you
> know, picking up kids from daycares, dealing with school meetings,
> getting together with friends and going out for some entertainment
> just to break up the monotony of work, maybe having to take look after
> parents or kids with debilitating health issues, there's a whole other
> life for people to care of besides their work life.  This is something
> you're against?  Yas, massuh, anytin' ya say massuh.
>
>
>
> > As for "affordable" health care, a GP makes $55,000/yr.  We have
> > plumbers in this country who make more than that.  How would you feel
> > if our government tried to dictated wage scales?
>
> I think your brain is still stuck in the 70s with that $55 grand a
> year.  It's more like this:
>
> http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Family_or_General_Practitione...
>
> Here in Canada GP's average $200 grand a year under a universal single
> payer system, in which everybody is covered no ands, ifs or buts about
> it.  Not bad, huh?  Gee, I wonder how that happens and you Americans
> are just too clueless to figure it out.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

As for your pay scale: You presented the US pay scale. The $55K GP is
a FRENCH GP. That is one of the techniques that France uses to keep
health costs low; France dictates a doctor's rates. Canada keeps cost
low by limiting the amount of service; Canada puts you on a wait list
because they can't service everyone in a timely fashion. "Access to a
waiting list is not access to health care," - Chief Justice Beverly
McLachlin

As for the 35 hour work week, I think that is great. However, I am
not in favor of a government that believes it can dictate to me that I
can NOT work more than 35 hours. I do not believe that it is a crime
to work 36 hours or more.

If you believe that a government has the power to dictate your hours,
to dictate your life, then you and I are so far apart that there is no
sense in debating the issue.

Jane
wy
2010-02-12 04:09:48 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 11, 9:42 pm, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 6:49 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 6:03 pm, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 11, 5:20 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 11, 4:39 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 +0000, Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello Pommes
>
> > > > > Frites! wrote:
> > > > > > Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid maternity
> > > > > > leave from her company for the birth. She can take another seven months
> > > > > > off beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if she wants, with her job
> > > > > > guaranteed under French law.
>
> > > > > Well, that's just great if you're her.  But what if you're her employer?
>
> > > > > That law fucks the businesses that hire people and create jobs.  And it
> > > > > fucks small business disproportionately.
>
> > > > Why are you so concerned about businesses?  The fact of the matter is
> > > > that businesses are doing no better nor worse in France than in the
> > > > U.S., if you're going to measure it according to unemployment.
> > > > Actually, unemployment is a little less in France than in the U.S.
> > > > right now and still, with the level being almost equal between them,
> > > > France can deliver the kind of universal health coverage the U.S. is
> > > > unable to do.  Screw businesses, just figure out why it is that with
> > > > practically the same employment climate in both countries, you don't
> > > > have to worry about health care in France but it's a big, big problem
> > > > for people in America.   And once you figure that out, maybe you'll
> > > > get down to what the real root of the problem is and not what right-
> > > > wingers want you to believe it is.
>
> > > > > Government can't give to one person without taking from another.  
>
> > > > Neither can business.  Think about it.
>
> > > France as a screwed up view of business.  They thought they could
> > > reduce unemployment by dictating a maximum of 35 hours work per week.
> > > They had "job police" who would patrol business parking lots  to
> > > ensure that people weren't working more than 35 hour.
>
> > And what's your point?  You've got something against not working more
> > than 35 hours per week?  People do have family lives to attend to, you
> > know, picking up kids from daycares, dealing with school meetings,
> > getting together with friends and going out for some entertainment
> > just to break up the monotony of work, maybe having to take look after
> > parents or kids with debilitating health issues, there's a whole other
> > life for people to care of besides their work life.  This is something
> > you're against?  Yas, massuh, anytin' ya say massuh.
>
> > > As for "affordable" health care, a GP makes $55,000/yr.  We have
> > > plumbers in this country who make more than that.  How would you feel
> > > if our government tried to dictated wage scales?
>
> > I think your brain is still stuck in the 70s with that $55 grand a
> > year.  It's more like this:
>
> >http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Family_or_General_Practitione...
>
> > Here in Canada GP's average $200 grand a year under a universal single
> > payer system, in which everybody is covered no ands, ifs or buts about
> > it.  Not bad, huh?  Gee, I wonder how that happens and you Americans
> > are just too clueless to figure it out.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
>
> As for your pay scale:  You presented the US pay scale. The $55K GP is
> a FRENCH GP.  That is one of the techniques that France uses to keep
> health costs low; France dictates a doctor's rates.  

Well, if it doesn't sit well with the GPs, then France wouldn't've had
the following results from their system:

In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came
in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and
one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000
live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy
is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far
more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower
rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in
deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of
mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in
France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm

So, if France paying their doctors a quarter of what a typical U.S. GP
earns produces much better results for the general population, then
maybe U.S. GPs should be paid less.



> Canada keeps cost
> low by limiting the amount of service; Canada puts you on a wait list
> because they can't service everyone in a timely fashion.  "Access to a
> waiting list is not access to health care," -  Chief Justice Beverly
> McLachlin

Yeah, well, she's a dipstick. Most people in Canada don't have a
problem with the system, you just need to be savvy as to when and
where to use it if you want to avoid waiting times and Canadians
understand, after 45 years of the system now, that especially in
hospitals you will wait longer, often unnecessarily longer, to get a
minor problem looked at than you would if you simply went to a clinic,
because hospitals are meant for "Emergencies." There are plenty of
clinics around for people to walk into and have a minor problem
checked out, even if someone doesn't have a regular GP, and waiting
time will vary according to the clinic and time of day you visit it.
I've had waits as brief as 10 minutes and as long as 2 hours, but most
tend to be in the half-hour range, which is fairly reasonable. You
just have to know when to do it, if it's not that much of an
emergency. And if it is an emergency, don't worry, they'll take you
in pronto and work on you pronto too.

>
> As for the 35 hour work week, I think that is great.  However, I am
> not in favor of a government that believes it can dictate to me that I
> can NOT work more than 35 hours.  I do not believe that it is a crime
> to work 36 hours or more.

What idiot would want to work more than 35 hours?

>
> If you believe that a government has the power to dictate your hours,
> to dictate your life, then you and I are so far apart that there is no
> sense in debating the issue.

I have no problems with any government stepping in and telling me I
can't work more than 35 hours. In fact, 25 hours would be ideal for
me. Life's too short to just be working throughout it. Maybe you
don't mind having what little time there could remain of your life
(you could get hit by a bus tomorrow) by working 6 hours overtime
tonight, but sorry, I'd rather spend those 6 "me" hours doing what I
really want to do and being with someone I really want to be with.
Once you start believing that there's nothing wrong with work
overtime, then you already have no life.
First Post
2010-02-12 00:33:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:03:11 -0800 (PST), jane <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 11, 5:20 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 4:39 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 +0000, Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello Pommes
>>
>> > Frites! wrote:
>> > > Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid maternity
>> > > leave from her company for the birth. She can take another seven months
>> > > off beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if she wants, with her job
>> > > guaranteed under French law.
>>
>> > Well, that's just great if you're her.  But what if you're her employer?
>>
>> > That law fucks the businesses that hire people and create jobs.  And it
>> > fucks small business disproportionately.
>>
>> Why are you so concerned about businesses?  The fact of the matter is
>> that businesses are doing no better nor worse in France than in the
>> U.S., if you're going to measure it according to unemployment.
>> Actually, unemployment is a little less in France than in the U.S.
>> right now and still, with the level being almost equal between them,
>> France can deliver the kind of universal health coverage the U.S. is
>> unable to do.  Screw businesses, just figure out why it is that with
>> practically the same employment climate in both countries, you don't
>> have to worry about health care in France but it's a big, big problem
>> for people in America.   And once you figure that out, maybe you'll
>> get down to what the real root of the problem is and not what right-
>> wingers want you to believe it is.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Government can't give to one person without taking from another.  
>>
>> Neither can business.  Think about it.
>
>France as a screwed up view of business. They thought they could
>reduce unemployment by dictating a maximum of 35 hours work per week.
>They had "job police" who would patrol business parking lots to
>ensure that people weren't working more than 35 hour.
>
>As for "affordable" health care, a GP makes $55,000/yr. We have
>plumbers in this country who make more than that. How would you feel
>if our government tried to dictated wage scales?
>
>
>Jane.

The3y'd be tickled shitless because that's exactly what they want.
The fools believe that it won't include them, only those nasty old
rich people they hate so much.
x***@xxx.com
2010-02-12 03:14:32 UTC
Permalink
jane wrote:

> On Feb 11, 5:20 pm, wy <***@myself.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 11, 4:39 pm, KK <***@furburger.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:56 +0000, Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello Pommes
>>
>>>Frites! wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid maternity
>>>>leave from her company for the birth. She can take another seven months
>>>>off beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if she wants, with her job
>>>>guaranteed under French law.
>>
>>>Well, that's just great if you're her. But what if you're her employer?
>>
>>>That law fucks the businesses that hire people and create jobs. And it
>>>fucks small business disproportionately.
>>
>>Why are you so concerned about businesses? The fact of the matter is
>>that businesses are doing no better nor worse in France than in the
>>U.S., if you're going to measure it according to unemployment.
>>Actually, unemployment is a little less in France than in the U.S.
>>right now and still, with the level being almost equal between them,
>>France can deliver the kind of universal health coverage the U.S. is
>>unable to do. Screw businesses, just figure out why it is that with
>>practically the same employment climate in both countries, you don't
>>have to worry about health care in France but it's a big, big problem
>>for people in America. And once you figure that out, maybe you'll
>>get down to what the real root of the problem is and not what right-
>>wingers want you to believe it is.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Government can't give to one person without taking from another.
>>
>>Neither can business. Think about it.
>
>
> France as a screwed up view of business. They thought they could
> reduce unemployment by dictating a maximum of 35 hours work per week.
> They had "job police" who would patrol business parking lots to
> ensure that people weren't working more than 35 hour.
>
> As for "affordable" health care, a GP makes $55,000/yr. We have
> plumbers in this country who make more than that. How would you feel
> if our government tried to dictated wage scales?
>
>
> Jane.

The largest group of self made millionaires in the US over the last 40
years are plumbers and landscapers. (Dot com guys excluded, since most
of them made and lost equal amounts.)

Maybe you should look into how they figured out a way to GET MDs with
their 55 grand per year offer. Certainly something to look into.
seastew
2010-02-12 00:23:01 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 11, 2:50 pm, "Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello Pommes Frites!"
<***@aurevoiramerique.lol> wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/11/france.quality.life/in...
>
> Why France is best place to live in world
>
> By Daniela Deane for CNN
> February 11, 2010
>
> London, England (CNN) -- Bindi Dupouy, an Australian living in Paris, and
> her French husband, just had their first child, a son born in the country.
>
> Dupouy, a 28-year-old lawyer, got almost five months paid maternity leave
> from her company for the birth. She can take another seven months off
> beyond that -- a year total -- unpaid, if she wants, with her job
> guaranteed under French law.
>
> When her son Louis was born, healthy and by way of a normal delivery, she
> got to stay in her local French hospital, around the corner from where she
> lives, for five full days, to rest.
>
> Welcome to France, voted the best place in the world to live for the fifth
> year in a row by International Living magazine, which has been analyzing
> data and publishing its annual Quality of Life Index for 30 years.
>
> One of the reasons France keeps winning the ranking is its world-class
> health care system, which Dupouy just experienced first-hand.
>
> "They treat expecting mums like treasures here," Dupouy told CNN from her
> Paris apartment. "They take really good care of you. The health care system
> is just amazing." She said she wouldn't have gotten the same maternity
> leave -- or care -- back home in Australia.
>
> At her job, Dupouy also gets seven weeks paid vacation a year, although
> it's her first job as an attorney since graduating with a law degree in
> Australia. She doesn't think twice about taking the Metro across town --  
> for just $1.37 a ride -- to visit a friend. Or she picks up a rental bike
> at one of the many computerized bike hire racks in town to get around.
>
> France scores high marks across the board in the survey, which is done
> every January, from health care (100 points) to infrastructure (92 points)
> to safety and risk (100 points).
>
> "No surprise," said the magazine in its report. "Its (France's) tiresome
> bureaucracy and high taxes are outweighed by an unsurpassable quality of
> life, including the world's best health care."
>
> "The bread, the cheese, the wine," Dan Prescher, special projects editor at
> the magazine, told CNN, when asked why France just keeps on winning year
> after year. "That weighs pretty heavily in quality of life."
>
> Prescher admitted the magazine had an "American bias" since the vast
> majority of its subscribers are Americans spending in U.S. dollars. "France
> is one of those golden places in the American consciousness," he said.
>
> The annual index ranks 194 countries and comprises nine categories: Cost of
> Living, Culture and Leisure, Economy, Environment, Freedom, Health,
> Infrastructure, Safety and Risk and Climate. The Index analyzes data from
> several official sources, including government web sites, the World Health
> Organization, and several media sources.
>
> Following France in the top ten are Australia, Switzerland, Germany, New
> Zealand, Luxembourg, the U.S., Belgium, Canada and Italy, in that order.
>
> "France always nets high scores in most categories," the magazine said.
> "But you don't need number-crunchers to tell you its 'bon vivant' lifestyle
> is special. It's impossible to enumerate the joy of lingering for hours
> over dinner and a bottle of red wine in a Parisian brasserie. Or strolling
> beside the Seine on a spring morning, poking through the book vendors'
> wares."
>
> Other European countries slipped a little in the magazine's rankings this
> year, with the exception of France and Germany. Britain dropped to 25th
> place from last year's ranking of 20.
>
> Variety is also seen as a major factor in France's appeal, with the survey
> noting that "romantic Paris offers the best of everything, but services
> don't fall away in Alsace's wine villages, in wild and lovely Corsica, in
> lavender-scented Provence."
>
> The United States dropped from third to seventh place in this year's
> rankings, largely because of the grinding economic crisis last year.
> "Sustaining the American dream has escalated out of the reach of many," the
> magazine said.
>
> "The depression hit the United States and Great Britain hard," Prescher
> told CNN. "That weighs down the ratings."
>
> Of course, France too has its problems. The country suffers from high youth
> unemployment, particularly among the disaffected young people who live in
> its equivalent of the projects, known as les banlieues.
>
> Late last year, the French government opened a national discussion about
> national identity, which has evolved into debates over whether immigrants,
> and particularly Muslim immigrants, are French enough. The country has the
> highest Muslim population of any European country, with an estimated six
> million living in the country.
>
> But for the most part, French people enjoy a good lifestyle. International
> Living says that during their large chunk of leisure time, the French enjoy
> visiting the country's many beaches and Alpine ski resorts.
>
> Dupouy -- like more famous expats Ernest Hemingway and Julia Child before
> her -- agrees.
>
> She and her husband vacation every year at the seaside near Bordeaux, in
> the southwest corner of France, where her husband's family has a home. They
> also go skiing in the Alps during the winter.
>
> She says that even if she and her husband decide to leave France for awhile
> during their lives, they'll always come back -- every year, probably.
>
> "The culture, the food, the family, it's all just really nice here," said
> Dupouy.

Once again, the majority of the best places to live are socialist
countries.
Harold Burton
2010-02-13 04:13:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news.alt.net>,
"Goodbye Freedom Fries, Hello Pommes Frites!"
<***@aurevoiramerique.lol> wrote:


> Why France is best place to live in world...


....if you're a layabout or like to be insulted.


Snicker.
jane
2010-02-17 14:54:45 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 16, 11:24 pm, cop welfare <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 8:36 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> > > >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> > > >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> > > >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> > > >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> > > >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> > > >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> > > >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> > > >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> > > >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> > > >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> > > >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> > > >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> > > >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> > > >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> > > >> >> lonesome?
>
> > > >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> > > >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> > > >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> > > >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> > > >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> > > >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> > > >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> > > >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> > > >> along with that.
>
> > > >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> > > >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> > > >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> > > >> consider small businesses.
>
> > > >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> > > >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> > > >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> > > >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> > > >> false.
>
> > > >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> > > >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> > > No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> > > Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> > > manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> > > outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> > > parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> > > smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> > > (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
> > > --
> > > lab~rat  >:-)
> > > Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
> > Don't waste your time with Wy; he is incapable of learning anything.
>
> > On Sept 25, 2009, Wy stated that the US is ranked 37th in health.  The
> > next day, I posted the actual WHO data the proved that the 37th
> > ranking was bogus. (http://tinyurl.com/ygqy8zv)
>
> > Now Wy is again posting the bogus 37th ranking.
>
> > There is a difference between a person who lacks knowledge and a
> > person who doesn't learn.
> > The first is called "ignorant"; the second is called  "Wy".
>
> > Jane- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> now, now, jane...
> you KNOW that that number isn't "bogus".
> it simply fails to exhibit the whole picture.
> you can argue statistics forever, can't you?
> and i'm sure yer willing to do so...
> if they don't agree with whatever view you hold to be advantageous to
> yerself.
> something about healthcare, wasn't it?
> yer taking yer life in yer own hands if you trust usa healthcare,
> private OR public.
> have a nice day.

Here is a DIRECT quote from the WHO report, "even the second ranked
country Switzerland could in fact be doing worse than the 15th ranked
country the United States".

It has to do with the Uncertainty Interval of the data. Stating a
ranking without the Uncertainty Interval is bogus.


Jane.
cop welfare
2010-02-17 15:46:19 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 17, 8:54 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 11:24 pm, cop welfare <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 8:36 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > > >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> > > > >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> > > > >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> > > > >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> > > > >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> > > > >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> > > > >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> > > > >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> > > > >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> > > > >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> > > > >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> > > > >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> > > > >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> > > > >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> > > > >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> > > > >> >> lonesome?
>
> > > > >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> > > > >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> > > > >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> > > > >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> > > > >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> > > > >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> > > > >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> > > > >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> > > > >> along with that.
>
> > > > >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> > > > >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> > > > >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> > > > >> consider small businesses.
>
> > > > >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> > > > >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> > > > >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> > > > >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> > > > >> false.
>
> > > > >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> > > > >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> > > > No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> > > > Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> > > > manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> > > > outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> > > > parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> > > > smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> > > > (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
> > > > --
> > > > lab~rat  >:-)
> > > > Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
> > > Don't waste your time with Wy; he is incapable of learning anything.
>
> > > On Sept 25, 2009, Wy stated that the US is ranked 37th in health.  The
> > > next day, I posted the actual WHO data the proved that the 37th
> > > ranking was bogus. (http://tinyurl.com/ygqy8zv)
>
> > > Now Wy is again posting the bogus 37th ranking.
>
> > > There is a difference between a person who lacks knowledge and a
> > > person who doesn't learn.
> > > The first is called "ignorant"; the second is called  "Wy".
>
> > > Jane- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > now, now, jane...
> > you KNOW that that number isn't "bogus".
> > it simply fails to exhibit the whole picture.
> > you can argue statistics forever, can't you?
> > and i'm sure yer willing to do so...
> > if they don't agree with whatever view you hold to be advantageous to
> > yerself.
> > something about healthcare, wasn't it?
> > yer taking yer life in yer own hands if you trust usa healthcare,
> > private OR public.
> > have a nice day.
>
> Here is a DIRECT quote from the WHO report, "even the second ranked
> country Switzerland could in fact be doing worse than the 15th ranked
> country the United States".
>
> It has to do with the  Uncertainty Interval of the data.  Stating a
> ranking without the Uncertainty Interval is bogus.
>
> Jane.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

i don't know about uncertainty intervals (plus or minus?)
isn't it up to the intrepid statistician to find that?
i see plenty of stats wo plus or minus attachments.
bogus?
of course not.
i'm sure they meant well.
jane
2010-02-17 16:11:38 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 17, 10:46 am, cop welfare <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 8:54 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 11:24 pm, cop welfare <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 8:36 am, jane <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 16, 8:09 am, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:39 -0800 (PST), wy <***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > > >On Feb 15, 1:53Êpm, "lab~rat  >:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:56:05 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > > >> >On Feb 15, 8:31æam, "lab~rat Ê>:-)" <***@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:57:28 -0800 (PST),wy<***@myself.com> puked:
>
> > > > > >> >> >> You're a sheep. ¾Small business, which creates 75%-80% of jobs, aren't
> > > > > >> >> >> monolithic, faceless entities you can just label as "evil" and justify
> > > > > >> >> >> any manner of fucking you wish: ¾they're people. ¾Individuals who have
> > > > > >> >> >> created something out of nothing, with their own capital, which amog
> > > > > >> >> >> other things, provides livelihood for its employees.
>
> > > > > >> >> >Those businesses have created nothing but a name for their business.
> > > > > >> >> >Then they have to buy stuff from other businesses in order to have a
> > > > > >> >> >business. æYou think the guy who runs the corner grocery made anything
> > > > > >> >> >in that store he's running? æAll that stuff he sells came from other
> > > > > >> >> >businesses, much bigger businesses, the 25% of businesses that really
> > > > > >> >> >run the engine of the economy, without which the other 75% would have
> > > > > >> >> >nothing to sell.
>
> > > > > >> >> So all the concrete and lumber and steel etc. I bought from another
> > > > > >> >> larger company would be better off dumped in a vacant lot and it would
> > > > > >> >> magically turn into a school, library, hospital, etc. all on its
> > > > > >> >> lonesome?
>
> > > > > >> >> Positively brilliant.
>
> > > > > >> >Did you create the concrete and lumber and steel? ÊNo. ÊWithout those
> > > > > >> >things, you'd have no job. ÊIn order for your end of the 75% of small
> > > > > >> >businesses to function, you need to rely on the 25% of businesses that
> > > > > >> >can make that happen for you.
>
> > > > > >> To that end, did you construct your personal dwelling from your own
> > > > > >> shit? ÊAnd did you grow your own food to produce that shit? ÊIf not,
> > > > > >> you needed someone on the residential end of my profession to help you
> > > > > >> along with that.
>
> > > > > >> And further, the physical materials are a small fraction of the cost
> > > > > >> compared to the engineering, fabrication, delivery and ultimate
> > > > > >> assembly of those products, most of which is done by what I would
> > > > > >> consider small businesses.
>
> > > > > >> But beyond that, what is the point you're trying to make? ÊThat we
> > > > > >> need large businesses? ÊI'm not going to argue that. ÊYou started off
> > > > > >> by saying that small businesses are nothing more than resellers of
> > > > > >> products sold by large businesses, and my point is that is clearly
> > > > > >> false.
>
> > > > > >Well, of course you're reselling the products.  You're not keeping all
> > > > > >that concrete, steel and lumber for yourself, are you?
>
> > > > > No, I'm taking the material and manufacturing a product.
>
> > > > > Of course, you can take a look at this in another way.  Major
> > > > > manufacturers of products like steel for instance have a number of
> > > > > outside vendors that furnish them with raw materials, equipment and
> > > > > parts to keep it running etc.  Generally all of those suppliers are
> > > > > smaller in scope than the manufacturing plant, so essentially
> > > > > (relatively) small businesses are keeping the LARGE business running.
> > > > > --
> > > > > lab~rat  >:-)
> > > > > Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
> > > > Don't waste your time with Wy; he is incapable of learning anything.
>
> > > > On Sept 25, 2009, Wy stated that the US is ranked 37th in health.  The
> > > > next day, I posted the actual WHO data the proved that the 37th
> > > > ranking was bogus. (http://tinyurl.com/ygqy8zv)
>
> > > > Now Wy is again posting the bogus 37th ranking.
>
> > > > There is a difference between a person who lacks knowledge and a
> > > > person who doesn't learn.
> > > > The first is called "ignorant"; the second is called  "Wy".
>
> > > > Jane- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > now, now, jane...
> > > you KNOW that that number isn't "bogus".
> > > it simply fails to exhibit the whole picture.
> > > you can argue statistics forever, can't you?
> > > and i'm sure yer willing to do so...
> > > if they don't agree with whatever view you hold to be advantageous to
> > > yerself.
> > > something about healthcare, wasn't it?
> > > yer taking yer life in yer own hands if you trust usa healthcare,
> > > private OR public.
> > > have a nice day.
>
> > Here is a DIRECT quote from the WHO report, "even the second ranked
> > country Switzerland could in fact be doing worse than the 15th ranked
> > country the United States".
>
> > It has to do with the  Uncertainty Interval of the data.  Stating a
> > ranking without the Uncertainty Interval is bogus.
>
> > Jane.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> i don't know about uncertainty intervals (plus or minus?)
> isn't it up to the intrepid statistician to find that?
> i see plenty of stats wo plus or minus attachments.
> bogus?
> of course not.
> i'm sure they meant well.

If the uncertainty levels are minor enough such that rankings are
distinct, then it is acceptable to list rankings without the
uncertainty intervals. If not, then the individuals in should be
grouped.


The WHO statisticians did provide the uncertainty intervals. The WHO
also suggested that, due to uncertainty, the countries be grouped in 9
different categories. The US is in the top category. This WHO item
is ignored by those with an agenda.


Idiots with an agenda post the 37th ranking without knowing the
uncertainty interval or the difference between the OP and OA
rankings. The reason they do this is because the 37th OP ranking
suits their agenda. Look at Wy's post. By Wy's own admission, he
doesn't know what an OA ranking means and he doesn't know what
uncertainty intervals are. However, he will post the 37th OP ranking
to suit his agenda.

When these agenda people list a citation it is always to a news story,
not actual data.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...