R. Martin
Usenet User
Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A |
Re: The Snot Report....its a biggie this time !
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
>
> Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
> >
> > Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
> > >
> > > From: BMJ (parametric_equation@yahoo.com)
> > > Subject: Re: The Snot Report....its a biggie this time !
> > > View: Complete Thread (9 articles)
> > > Original Format
> > > Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> > > Date: 2004-11-28 09:00:00 PST
> > >
> > > I am having problems with google usenet posting. I hope it reaches the
> > > intended audience correctly.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > -kamal
> > > p.s:- I may not posting much till I can get the problems resolved at
> > > my end.
> > >
> > > R. Martin wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >>One of the main characters in the movie said "Who cares about Sputnik?
> > > >>We've got rock and roll." Unforutnately, that attitude hasn't changed
> > > >>much over the years.
> > > >>
> > > >><snip>
> > > >[snip]
> I have sent in a posting for the portion snipped and hope it shows up.
>
> >I don't see what, but be that as it may it isn't a hope. It would
> >happen if conditions, such as the mood of the American people,
> >warranted. Now it might take something extreme to alter the mood
> >that much, but it has happened before. If W drops the ball on the
> >Korean situation or Formosa because he's too busy trying to prove
> >he's tougher than his daddy in Iraq, and we get into a military
> >confrontation with the PRC, WalMart will be restocking feverishly
> >because people will quit buying anything with a Made in China tag.
>
> You seem to be under the impression that chinese goods don't offer a
> lot of savings to american consumers.
Not at all, and I don't see how you could have reached that conclusion.
My position is that they do not offer an unlimited savings to the
American consumer, savings that will under all conceivable circumstances
keep them viable in the American market. As I said, the conditions
under which they wouldn't be are probably extreme, but not
inconceivable.
> It turns out that they do [but
> some of that huge savings might well end up being pocketed by
> monopolies like walmart]. No matter what the geopoliticial equation
> might be -the US stands to gain by buying chinese goods on the cheap.
Monetarily, perhaps, but there is more to the world, even in the U.S.,
than money.
> I mean on the cheap, because they use an inflated currency to buy the
> stuff. When you use a currency that is inflated say 5 times (the USD
> to the Rupee) to buy something, it is not much different from paying 1
> dollar in real notes and 4 others in counterfeit notes. Its one hell
> of a bargain for the US to have an inflated currency and buy a lot of
> stuff from the world around it. They aren't doing so to reduce poverty
> in China or because they happen to be good friends of the chinese.
> They are doing it for their own sake.
>
> >Will that happen? I hope not, but it isn't beyond the stupidity of
> >the leadership in the U.S. or PRC. Remember, the PRC forced down an
> >American recon plane not that long ago. Whatever the facts (the
> plane
> >was/wasn't violating airspace, the Chinese did/didn't have some rogue
> >elements in the air defense effort, etc.), it was not an incident to
> >give anyone a good feeling about the stability of U.S./PRC relations
> >or leadership.
>
> When you have increased trade, that makes way for better std of living
> and pushing aside things that get in the way [like a border dispute].
If you were right there would never be a war in the world because war,
on balance, has always hurt the standard of living of the of people
involved. For instance death REALLY hurts one's standard of living. ;-)
> > You have an inflated currency precisely to buy more imported
> > goods with fewer dollars.
>
> >They don't tell me what they are doing in high councils of
> government,
> >so I don't know if that is true or not. AFAIK I have not stated an
> >opinion on that topic one way or another. Are you a member of
> Federal
> >Reserve Board or an Undersecretary of the Treasury? If so I'll
> accept
> >your statement, otherwise I think you are just conjecturing. Either
> >way, it doesn't matter to me in an intellectual sense, and I can't
> >control the economic sense other than to spend my money as I see fit.
>
> No -I am not conjecturing as you suppose. The facts are irrefutable.
Yes, but your interpretation of what constitutes a "fact" is refutable.
> Check out how many times the US has reiterated its 'strong dollar
> policy' or how many times Robert Rubin was recalled by the clinton
> administration at the behest of the currency market. The US does stand
> to gain in many ways by maintaining an inflated currency. What makes
> the currency sound inflated? Simply the fact that the USD buys a lot
> less within the US than another currency in its own region when you
> convert the USD to that currency at the prevailing exchange rate.
Again, you are confusing the rhetoric of government officials [and
who really believes them, since they are politicians and professional
(and in some cases pathological) liars; Richard Nixon comes to mind
in the later category] with facts.
>
> > If the currency hadn't been inflated,
> > imported goods would automatically be expensive and not stocked at
> > price-competitive stores like walmart.
>
> >Even if what you say is true, I doubt if exchange rates account
> >for most of the price difference. WalMart would still sell cheap
> >goods, maybe just not as cheap, because that is its business model.
>
> It can't
It can't what, sell for less than anyone else in the market? That's
ridiculous. It can, and does, undersell Nieman Marcus and I suspect
always will. That goes for any other retailer, and if Walmart does
lose that market position it will probably be because some else is
outrunning it in the spiral to the bottom. Such an occurrence would
do nothing to alter my conlusions, since it doesn't matter what the
name of the company is.
> because you can't get work done for free or have someone
> subsidise his living so that he can work at walmart.
You obviously don't know about how WalMart functions. There have
been exposes on how WalMart gets tax breaks from local government
(a subsidy) to build a store, runs it a few years and then goes to
a government down the road a couple of miles and asks for better
subsidies, gets them, and builds a new store and closes the old one.
In the mean time it provides no health care benefits for many of
its employees, and instead tells them how to go about applying for
private and government finianced medical care and food assistance
for the poor, which constitutes a subsidy from the population as a
whole to individual WalMart workers.
> If the lowest
> Walmart (or one of its suppliers) pays to illgeals is $4/hr (and $8/hr
> for citizens) -that is still many times more than $1-$2 per day in
> China.
You're mixing apples (what WalMart pay store employees) with oranges
(what its suppliers pay their workers).
> If any company opts to pay $1/day to hispanics -they wouldn't
> bother to enter the US. It costs more than that 1$/day to survive (in
> the worst conditions possible) in the US. How can the Chinese live
> comfortably at 1$/day? because their cost of living is way low in
> dollar terms.
But that still wouldn't prevent WalMart from selling for less than
it's competition, just not as much less. The competion would also
have to switch suppliers under the scenario I postulate.
>
> >Much of its advertising is centered on that (Always Low Prices,
> >Another Price Rollback, etc.). And WalMart would still use its
> >purchasing power to blackma...errr...drive a hard bargain to make
> >suppliers cut prices to the bone. ;-)
>
> Yeah -but what if the suppliers would rather go out of business than
> sell goods at chinese prices and incur a loss [employing people in the
> US to produce those goods]? How will walmart blackmail them in that
> sceanrio?
Like I said above, WalMart just has to beat the competition in relative
terms to be the cheapest, what level of cheapness that is. It has
proven very good at that. If it had to pay more to stock its shelves,
but all its competitors have to, too, then WalMart is still the
cheapest.
>
> >
> > > >That would require a long-term vision beyond the end of the next
> > > >financial quarter. It would also mean being more concerned about
> > > >maintaining or improving financial circumstances beyond simply
> > > >increasing share prices.
> > >
> > > If you had to be a fortune 500/walmart CEO, how would you deal with
> > > the situation?
> > >I would never be in that situation, any more that I'd be elected
> > >President. If I were, I'd run the company according to my philosophy,
> > >which I've expounded in part here over the years. That includes
> > >honest, ethical dealings and communications with employers, stock
> > >holders, customers, etc., which is why I'd never make it to CEO in
> > >99% of companies. :-)
> >
> > If you can provide more shareholder value, you have a good chance of
> > being the CEO.
>
> >But shareholder value and how to provide it is a complicated subject,
> >more complicated than most shareholders (and IMO most so called
> >"stock analysts") think. They wouldn't want to hear my ideas and
> >would never consider trying them, hence I'd never be given a chance
> >to be a CEO to prove them.
>
> Its real simple -what can you do to improve the balancesheet that the
> incumbent fails to do?
It is convincing the stockholders and analysts that it will work that
is the hard part.
>
> > There is no way you can replace a 1$ chinese product by
> > a $10 american one, and retain either the cost conscious customer base
> > or make as good a profit as walmart does currently.
>
> >That's exactly the thinking that would prevent anyone from ever
> >making me a CEO. Thank you for proving my point.
>
> If you can show them the math on how to stock american and still make
> a better profit/retain the customer base -they will.
If you think running a super successful business can be reduced to
merely math, then IMO you will never run a super successful business,
at least not for long.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Interestingly, I think it can be argued that rock and roll did as
> > > > much to "defeat" Communism as the space race or anything else.
> > > >My point was that having rock and roll made more important issues such
> > > >as the potential threat represented by Sputnik appear irrelevant. Just
> > > >look at how many people are plugged into their portable CD players or
> > > >iPods and have their heads full of music, but don't do anything else.
> > > >It's as if nothing else matters, an audio form of soma (to borrow the
> > > >term from "Brave New World").
> > > >But you're right in that rock and roll did much to defeat the Soviet
> > > >Union. One of the reasons that Voice of America was popular behind the
> > > >Iron Curtain was its jazz program. Listeners over there couldn't get
> > > >enough of it.
> > >
> > > They came out of the horrors of WWII (and one of the reasons the
> > > soviet union came into being was to prevent another horror).
> > >It came into being out of the horrors of WWI, and it didn't anything
> > >to prevent the horrors of WWII because Stalin waa almost as much of a
> > >madman as Hitler.
> >
> > Fine. The cold war started after WWII. They had refugee camps all over
> > the country side after WWII, and their economic situation was by no
> > means good enough to fight an economic war with the US.
>
> >Yes. I never said it was. Are you sure you're reading what I'm
> >writing, because you seem to be tilting at straw men. Europe and
>
> I am reading what you are saying -but there might well be a
> disconnect.
>
> >Japan were probably worse off, yet they became viable economic
> >competitors to the U.S. Of course, the U.S. helped them and didn't
> >help the Soviet block, but do you think the Soviet Union would have
> >won the economic war if it hadn't suffered significant damage during
> >WWII? Maybe, who knows? But I'm not sure just what point you're
> >trying to make by even bringing it up.
>
> The US helped Japan and some parts of Europe. It also gained a lot by
> becoming an arms supplier to the war theatre [and because of its
> distance did not suffer a collateral damage]. The soviet union could
> have survived economically on its own and become prosperous had it not
> been for both (a) bad economic model
e.g bad leadership
> (b) arms race with the US.
bad leadership again
> The
> americans put economic pressure by triggering an arms race
It takes two to race.
> -and a
> similar pressure is being put on them in Iraq. The longer the US stays
> there -the more the american taxpayer will have to shell out to cover
> the expenses and it is my belief that a wave of economic problems
> similar to the ones that followed Vietnam will come to haunt you after
> the projected 4-5 yrs of occupation.
Have you heard me arguing against that point?
>
> >
> > > United
> > > States is a new world country with lots of resources. The soviets
> > > never stood a chance in the economic war that happened. They collapsed
> > > because of the strain of raising the stakes [and to some extent
> > > because of inefficient indusrties]
> > >True. I often smile at my more jingoistic countrymen when they
> > >expound upon how the nation was made great by the industry and
> > >spirit of the people, without admitting we stole a great big piece
> > >of some of the richest real estate in the world from the natives.
> > >Granted they didn't do nearly as much as we have to exploit it, but
> > >if England has sent colonist to the Sahara Desert, would they have
> > >made it into the United States of today? Not a chance. It is the
> >
> > Yes -its a lot to do with resources, but also some to the economic
> > model. Some other countries with the anglo-saxxon model have a better
> > economy with fewer resources than those that dont subscribe to that
> > model.
>
> >True, but there is variance. It think the scatter is too large to
> >definitively ascribe causality, but economists try to do so anyway.
> >What they publish as data and analyses wouldn't get past the
> referrees
> >in the hard sciences, but governments make policy based on it anyway.
> >Sad...
>
> Not sure I understand you. I was referring to other east asian
> countries that are more prosperous than India despite having fewer
> resources/greater population density. We were late to the free-market
> economic model, and that explains the difference.
I doubt if it explains all the difference, hence variance.
There is variance in the data, noise if you will. Economists, having
very little grounding in real science using real data, fit poor data,
of which they often do not really understand the validity, to models
developed on a theoretical foundation of sand. Then they convince
governments that they have the explanation for why country X is doing
better than country Y, and that they know how Y should change, when
in fact the difference that they see explained by the model may be a
coincidence of errors in the model and errors (in a real or statistical
sense, or both) in the data. When things don't work out, they make
excuses instead of saying, "Well, you know we really don't know much
about how economics in the real world works, and these results prove
it, so maybe we should just go back to publishing in our academic
journals and suggest that governments don't pay any attention to our
results until we've really figured it out". Sad...
>
> >
> > >national version of the idea of the self-made man which many neo-cons
> > >subscribe to, especially when thinking about themselves, without
> > >admitting that they (probably) were born into a reasonably well off
> > >family which helped them get their start in life, and were helped all
> > >along the way by society. Of course, some of that can be said to
> > >exist for all citizens, but as it says in _Animal Farm_, some animals
> > >are more equal than others.
> >
> > I believe americans would be better off expecting their leaders to
> > provide more jobs, education etc..
>
> >Many have quit expecting much from the present leadership. Some
> >no longer expect much from any leadership.
>
> Or it could be that they agree with what the incumbent is doing -which
> explaons his popularity ratings.
Yes, some do. Half the population is below median IQ. :-)
>
> > than making a pledge to make it the
> > greatest nation on planet earth (which is what GWB does).
>
> >One can't always take rhetoric at face value, either.
> Its a statement from one of GWB's campaign speeches. Politicians say
> things that get them the votes. If it can get him votes to tell the
> american public that he wants to make the US the greatest nation on
> planet earth, he will say just that. You can't pass all the blame
> onto the incumbent -some of it lies with the attendees too.
See the IQ comment above. :-)
>
> > In India,
> > people ask their leaders for more schools not invade countries.
>
> >The Indian people get as little of what they want from their leaders
> >as Americans get from there leaders, or why would India be building
> >nuclear weapons? Because Pakistan is? Well, then the people of
> >Pakistan are getting poor leadership, too. IOW there is a lot of
> >bad leadership in the world, and the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly
> >on that any more than a lot of other things.
>
> We have (had) bad leadership which is why we have a split mandate. No
> party has absolute majority and can take things for granted. If the
> current prime minister is unpopular, the parties supporting him will
> pull the carpet to extract politicial mileage -and that ensures that
> the incumbent cannot get away with abuse of power easily. India built
> an atomic bomb in 1974 and has maintained a nuclear edge all along
> with Pakistan. But it went in for inter-regional ballastic missiles to
> level off with China with whom we have had a conflict in the past.
> What they are spending currently on defence is hardly a drain compared
> to the budgets of most other countries. One of the actively debated
> pieces of legislation right now is a right to work for at least 1
> member of a family for 100 days in a year. That is where most of the
> effort is concentrated. I don't know which govt is better or worse,
> but the priorities of the Indian public are more along the lines of
> jobs, education etc.. and not achieving anything spectacular on the
> geopolitical front. [Even the space program which has huge civilian
> impact- is run on a shoestring budget].
> >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > It
> > > > largely collapsed of its own problems, but one of its problems was
> > > > that most people in the world (including the USSR) wanted an American-
> > > > like lifestyle, complete with rock and roll, which Communism could not
> > > > provide. If American leaders had believed their own rhetoric about
> > > > the inferiority of the Communist system, the US could have saved a lot
> > > > of money spent "fighting" Communism by just being patient and waiting
> > > > for the inevitable.
> > >
> > > They went bankrupt for reasons besides lifestyle /rock-n-roll
> > > preferences.
> > >Exactly my point, the U.S. just had to be patient and wait for the
> > >inevitable. Rock and roll is in part a catch phrase for the consumer
> > >
> No -the US hastened their bankruptcy and did not allow them and many
> other communist states to stand up on their legs. They put military
> pressuire (which translates to taking money off the development table
> and putting it onto the arms race tab;e] because of which most
> communist states choked to their economic death.
Like I said, it takes two to race. If their leadership thought they
needed to race the U.S. to protect themselves, IMO they were badly
mistaken. The American people at that time were still fundamentally
isolationist and would not have preemptively invaded anyone.
Cheers,
Russell
--
All too often the study of data requires care.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
12-18-2004 09:06 AM
