Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Front page, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sunday, Dec 19:

Cheap clothes have entered our markets in the last ten years.

Clothing prices went down 10% in this period, everything else went up by
an average of 27%. The bar graph showed that people are also spending more
money on clothes today than ten years ago. The article continues with
another graph where it shows there were 900,000 textile workers ten years
ago, today there are less than 300,000.

In 1991 49% of clothes bought in the USA were imported, today it is 97%.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

straydog wrote:
>
> Front page, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sunday, Dec 19:
>
> Cheap clothes have entered our markets in the last ten years.
>
> Clothing prices went down 10% in this period, everything else went up by
> an average of 27%. The bar graph showed that people are also spending more
> money on clothes today than ten years ago. The article continues with
> another graph where it shows there were 900,000 textile workers ten years
> ago, today there are less than 300,000.
>
> In 1991 49% of clothes bought in the USA were imported, today it is 97%.

But Art, that's good for the economy. The people getting wealthy
in the economy tell us it is, and you certainly must believe them
because they are rich and therefore smarter than everyone else, and
besides they wouldn't lie to us, right? ;-)

Cheers,
Russell
--
All too often the study of data requires care.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, R. Martin wrote:

> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:35:01 GMT
> From: R. Martin <russell.martin@wdn.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: The snot on the clothing economy...
>
> straydog wrote:
>>
>> Front page, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sunday, Dec 19:
>>
>> Cheap clothes have entered our markets in the last ten years.
>>
>> Clothing prices went down 10% in this period, everything else went up by
>> an average of 27%. The bar graph showed that people are also spending more
>> money on clothes today than ten years ago. The article continues with
>> another graph where it shows there were 900,000 textile workers ten years
>> ago, today there are less than 300,000.
>>
>> In 1991 49% of clothes bought in the USA were imported, today it is 97%.
>
> But Art, that's good for the economy.

Um....why?

The people getting wealthy
> in the economy tell us it is,

Ah... there's your answer. If you were laughing as you went to the bank,
wouldn't you say "everything is just fine"?

> and you certainly must believe them
> because they are rich and therefore smarter than everyone else,

The theoretical and practical aspects of the relationship between being or
becoming rich and being or becoming smart are very interesting.

However... I'd rather that we entertain the questions of: i) _how_ a
few people become rich by exploiting a large number of other people
(answers: economies of scale, illegal [eg. Microsoft's monopoly] and
unethical things [read the papers]), ii) _why_ all of the groveling and
starving underlings allow all this to happen and even in ignorance (beyond
the scope of this post), and iii) what is your definition of "smart" (I
think what rich people _use_ for smarts is a lot different than what we
_use_ for smarts).

and
> besides they wouldn't lie to us, right? ;-)

OOHHHHHH NNOOOOOOOOOOOO!... just like Enron/Andersen wouldn't lie to us!

;-)

> Cheers,
> Russell
> --
> All too often the study of data requires care.
>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

straydog wrote:

<snip>

>
> The theoretical and practical aspects of the relationship between being
> or becoming rich and being or becoming smart are very interesting.

Even Newton was taken in by an investment scam and he even admitted that
he was better at science than he was at finance.

>
> However... I'd rather that we entertain the questions of: i) _how_ a few
> people become rich by exploiting a large number of other people
> (answers: economies of scale, illegal [eg. Microsoft's monopoly] and
> unethical things [read the papers]), ii) _why_ all of the groveling and
> starving underlings allow all this to happen and even in ignorance
> (beyond the scope of this post),

Bread and circuses. Provide the masses with ample quantities of both,
and one can do anything after that.

and iii) what is your definition of
> "smart" (I think what rich people _use_ for smarts is a lot different
> than what we _use_ for smarts).

<snip>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

BMJ wrote:
>
> straydog wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > The theoretical and practical aspects of the relationship between being
> > or becoming rich and being or becoming smart are very interesting.
>
> Even Newton was taken in by an investment scam and he even admitted that
> he was better at science than he was at finance.

Yes, I just read about that in _Devil Take the Hindmost_. I'm too lazy
to go get the book but he said somthing like, "I can calculate the
motions of the moon but not the irrationality of men". IIRC he got
into it rather late, having resisted the scheme for a while. Of course,
the winners got in early (often in ways that today would be illegal and
make Martha's crimes look like jaywalking), and then got out. Newton
was not completely wiped out like some people were, and even the King
invested, so people thought it must be fine.

snip

Cheers,
Russell
--
All too often the study of data requires care.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

R. Martin wrote:

<snip>

>>Even Newton was taken in by an investment scam and he even admitted that
>>he was better at science than he was at finance.
>
>
> Yes, I just read about that in _Devil Take the Hindmost_. I'm too lazy
> to go get the book but he said somthing like, "I can calculate the
> motions of the moon but not the irrationality of men". IIRC he got
> into it rather late, having resisted the scheme for a while. Of course,
> the winners got in early (often in ways that today would be illegal and
> make Martha's crimes look like jaywalking), and then got out. Newton
> was not completely wiped out like some people were, and even the King
> invested, so people thought it must be fine.
>
> snip
>
> Cheers,
> Russell

The South Sea Bubble, as I recall it. Most schemes like that are given
credibility when someone prominent puts money into them or gives them
their approval. I'm sure we can think of several like that.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged