Driver to drive?

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:25:47 -0500, Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net>
wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2012 08:02:51 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2012 21:24:51 -0500, Joe Chisolm
jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2012 16:04:17 -0400, dh wrote:

I heard that all incandescent bulbs will quit being produced and
illegal to sell in 2013. Is that true? I've also heard that some bulbs
like the Par 38 outdoor spots and floods might continue to be
available. Is that true? Someone said they thought pretty much all
halogen bulbs will still be available... Can someone there tell me
what the truth actually is? What about entertainment bulbs, like Par
64s and 56s, and aircraft landing lights...???

Get your 100W ones here, buy them online:

http://newcandescent.com/index.html

http://thesenewtimes.com/when-they-give-you-lemons-make-lemonade

All fluff and no meat. Do you get the same lumens at 30% less energy,
or is it a scam?


Dont know. Was listening to Rush one day and heard him talking to
this guy about them. The key was you could still get incandescents
of any wattage and not have to deal with CFL. If I remember correctly
the CR they passed in December only delayed the ban for 9 months.

AFAIK, the ban on 100W bulbs is technically still in effect. The CR that was
passed only delayed the enforcement of the law. IOW, if you sell a 100W
medium Edison base bulb, you're still violating the law but the government
can't prosecute you. Yet.

BTW: If anyone should be recalled it's Harry Reid and the rest of
the senate for not doing their constitutionally mandated job.

If that happened, there would never have been a Senate.

I stock up on incandescents at...

http://1000bulbs.com/

Though I must confess... while no fan of CFL's, I have been replacing
incandescents at hard to reach locations with LED equivalents.

...Jim Thompson

I rarely use 100W and have a supply of 75 and 60 while I shift over
to LED. I still use CFL in a few ceiling cans becuase they run cooler.
When they die I'll move them to LED. Redoing the kitchen lights
now - they will all be LED

I use 100s for outside, garage, and basement lighting. The basement I'll
switch over to fluorescent, sooner or later. I have a *lot* of fixtures that
want unfrosted 60W bulbs.

 

[Glen Walpert]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 16:32:24 -0400, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave Platt wrote:

In article <EqmdnaPROdc2UD_SnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:

Get your 100W ones here, buy them online:

http://newcandescent.com/index.html

http://thesenewtimes.com/when-they-give-you-lemons-make-lemonade

All fluff and no meat. Do you get the same lumens at 30% less
energy,
or is it a scam?

It looks to me as if these folks are trying to take advantage of one of
the exemptions in the law. "Rough service" and "vibration service"
lamps are specifically exempted from the new lumen-efficiency
regulations.

I note that these bulbs list a 10,000 hour lifespan. If I recall
correctly, standard incandescents are rated at about 2,000 hours.
Longer-life incandescents tend to have heavier, higher-resistance
filaments that operate at a somewhat lower temperature than standard
incandescents... and because they run cooler, their emissions are
shifted even more towards the IR than is usual for an incandescent.

So, you get somewhat lower lumens per watt than with a standard
incandescent. For a given amount of light delivered, these bulbs may
cost significantly more to operate than a normal incandescent... let
alone one of the 70-watt halogen-capsule "100-watt replacement" bulbs
now on the market.



The good ones (1690 lumens @ 100W) are 750 hours.

and a color temperature of about 2870 K

Better color can be had with shorter life:

ECT PhotoFlood Lamp 13650 lumens @ 500w, 3200 K, 60 hours

EBV PhotoFlood Lamp 17000 lumens @ 500w, 3400 K, 6 hours

The blue filtered EBW daylight photoflood delivers a color temperature of
4800 K with some unfound reduction in lumen output, 6 hours.

Still available, stock up now . It will be a long time before any LED
bulb matches the CRI of these - or the quartz-halogen bulbs with
reasonable lifetimes.

http://www.molalla.net/members/leeper/L%20prize%20bulb.htm

(scroll way down for LED bulb spectrum.)

 

On May 3, 2:25 pm, Joe Chisolm <jchiso...@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2012 08:02:51 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2012 21:24:51 -0500, Joe Chisolm
jchiso...@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2012 16:04:17 -0400, dh wrote:

I heard that all incandescent bulbs will quit being produced and
illegal to sell in 2013. Is that true? I've also heard that some bulbs
like the Par 38 outdoor spots and floods might continue to be
available. Is that true? Someone said they thought pretty much all
halogen bulbs will still be available... Can someone there tell me
what the truth actually is? What about entertainment bulbs, like Par
64s and 56s, and aircraft landing lights...???

Get your 100W ones here, buy them online:

http://newcandescent.com/index.html

http://thesenewtimes.com/when-they-give-you-lemons-make-lemonade

All fluff and no meat.  Do you get the same lumens at 30% less energy,
or is it a scam?

Dont know.  Was listening to Rush one day and heard him talking to
this guy about them.  The key was you could still get incandescents
of any wattage and not have to deal with CFL. If I remember correctly
the CR they passed in December only delayed the ban for 9 months.

BTW: If anyone should be recalled it's Harry Reid and the rest of
the senate for not doing their constitutionally mandated job.

I stock up on incandescents at...

         http://1000bulbs.com/

Though I must confess... while no fan of CFL's, I have been replacing
incandescents at hard to reach locations with LED equivalents.

                                       ...Jim Thompson

I rarely use 100W and have a supply of 75 and 60 while I shift over
to LED. I still use CFL in a few ceiling cans becuase they run cooler.
When they die I'll move them to LED.  Redoing the kitchen lights
now - they will all be LED

UV degrades retinas over time, producing night blindness / reduced
sensitivity at night.

Blue light does the same at a slower pace.

I like LEDs but the heavy blue spike bugs me. I'd betcha 20 years
hence some genius figures out it's harmful.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On May 2, 3:41 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:

When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...

   Fuck you.  I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
because my health failed.

Michael, I'm proud to work a little longer and pay a little more.
You're the kind of guy we want to help.

I'm surrounded by people who compete with you for that same pool of
money who are able-bodied, yet who simply don't want to work.

James Arthur

 

[Les Cargill]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 2, 3:41 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"<mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...

Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
because my health failed.

Michael, I'm proud to work a little longer and pay a little more.
You're the kind of guy we want to help.

Ditto. I'm also sorry if my post upset you, Micheal. That's
what that system is *for*.

I'm surrounded by people who compete with you for that same pool of
money who are able-bodied, yet who simply don't want to work.

Some might be Zero Marginal Product workers. Nobody knows
what to do about that.

James Arthur

--
Les Cargill

 

On May 2, 6:40 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:

Charlie E. wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill
lcargil...@comcast.com>  wrote:

Charlie E. wrote:
,snip
There used to be a stigma about being on relief.  You didn't want
to do it, and if you did, you got off as quickly as you could.

But then, in the 60's and 70's, a new meme took hold, those that
purposely went on 'relief.' Welfare moms, entire households of
multiple generations living comfortably on the dole.  And, the
sad truth was, it was ENCOURAGED by those in authority.

Whut?  I have known very, very few people who *preferred* to be on
relief/welfare. I know a lot of people who have had some measure of
trouble finding  a job - not because they aren't qualified, but
because jobs are disappearing.

You see, you define relief = welfare, when it encompasses a much
larger number of programs today.  You should go to the grocery store
more often.  It seems like about half the folks in the check out are
doing the 'food stamp shuffle' where they pick one from column A,
put all their 'not-allowed' products in group B, and spend an extra
five minutes paying for everything.

This is true. Scope is always iffy in these threads.

I thought the subject was "welfare moms, entire households... on
the dole" above. That sounds suspiciously like *welfare* welfare,
not a modest food subsidy to the working poor.

Once upon a time, there were "commdities". You went to the ... USDA?
office, signed up they gave you stuff like powdered milk, beans, cheese.

These were in essence oversupply bought by the USDA as part of farm
subsidies.

Some genius decided that rather than keep that whole infrastructure in
place, why we'd just have "generic" foodstuffs and  allow people to
buy the stuff in stores. To replace the subsidy, food stamps were
invented. Maybe it saved money; I dunno. Ex ante, it looks like
it would be very price-distorting, and it is.

Yep.

Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it runs
the price of cheese and milk up.

If I read this right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't
see any positive feedback runaway here...

a) It's doubled in 3 years.
b) That's a lot of money.
c) You're not counting all the zillions of other handout programs.
Together, that's BIG money.

We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of production.
Because you have to absorb facts.

That exact argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution
began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still lots
to do.

We've gone from what, 80% of population in agriculture to <3%, because
of machines, yet we produce more food than ever. Was that bad?

We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that significant a
load on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like 2-3% ) .

Means-tested welfare is ~20% of federal spending. That's huge.
That's ignoring the big transfer programs, too.

Federal+state government consumes / dissipates ~41% of the gross
proceeds of all activity. That's huge too. Federal regulations alone
imposed $1.75T in compliance costs on small business in 2008.

All that stuff adds up!

Disability, SS and Medicare are a  problem.

When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job
market, they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...

People dependent on the government voted for more government.
Government that promised to 'take care' of people got reelected.
So, now we have a society in which half of the population doesn't
pay income taxes.

That isn't a problem in itself, except that it reflects the fact
that wages are flat as a still pond.

No, it is a problem.  We have convinced over 50% of Americans that
they should get a 'free ride' from everyone else, or actually get
something more from everyone else.  It is a pernicous attitude that
should be stopped!

I do not give a rat's patoot about *anybody's* "attitude". We do
progressive taxation in the US. This is a good thing, for cultural as
well as economic efficiency reasons.

The reason people are out of work is that more and more work
is done by machines. It's not like we're short on goods and
services. If you're gonna enjoy the resulting low prices,
you gotta pony up to keep people alive who got "made redundant"
by that process.

We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of production.
Because you have to absorb facts.

That same argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution
began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still lots
to do. Except, suddenly, now.

(You can say that again!)

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Les Cargill]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 2, 6:40 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
snip

Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it runs the
price of cheese and milk up.

If I read this right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't see any
positive feedback runaway here...

a) It's doubled in 3 years.

a.1) It'll probably halve in three more...

b) That's a lot of money.

Not in Bizarro Government World. No matter how strange you think it is,
it's much stranger yet. Especially with food, the net effect *could* be
quite small ( was it you pointing me to "King Corn"? Yeah, like
that .... ) The marginal cost and materials used to make
that stuff is pretty low, because the supply is doubly-regulated - by
subsidies and by the futures markets.

c) You're not counting all the zillions of other handout programs.
Together, that's BIG money.

All that is true enough.

We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of
production. Because you have to absorb facts.

That exact argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution
began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still
lots to do.

This seems different. We've had in essence no improvement in employment
since about 1980, other than bubbles. This while GDP has been pretty
healthy.

The proto-Marxists and Marxists were wrong for technical reasons. People
who point to this like me will be wrong for other reasons we don't
know about. But that leaves the here and now...

We've gone from what, 80% of population in agriculture to<3%,
because of machines, yet we produce more food than ever. Was that
bad?

Oh, absolutely. No doubt. But if I consider
that a data point that indicates that we may continue
to have unemployment problems. As happened with agriculture
happened with industry.

At this writing, because of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment
Act of 1979, unemployment is in scope for government. It's
probably an ironic coincidence, but just as poverty stopped
dropping after the passage of Johnson's Great Society,
unemployment has been a fact of life since.

A proper Hayekian would shrug and say "of course." Government
creates bubbles... I guess my point is that we appear
not to be able to keep our hands off it, so we need to
do it better. As it is, we're stuck.

We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that
significant a load on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like
2-3% ) .

Means-tested welfare is ~20% of federal spending. That's huge.
That's ignoring the big transfer programs, too.

Federal+state government consumes / dissipates ~41% of the gross
proceeds of all activity. That's huge too. Federal regulations
alone imposed $1.75T in compliance costs on small business in 2008.

All that stuff adds up!

No question about that. The compliance cost alone are horrifying.
That some rent-seeking sh*t right there... I guess if I
had a point, it would be that the government cheese and welfare seems
more acceptable than some of the worst regulatory wankery...

<snip>

We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of
production. Because you have to absorb facts.

That same argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution
began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still
lots to do. Except, suddenly, now.

(You can say that again!)

I sincerely hope you are right! I hope this is just a bad patch.

If you are interested, check out Arnold Kling's "Patterns of Sustainable
Specialization and Trade" concept. But only if you don't tend
towards depression...

-- Cheers, James Arthur

--
Les Cargill

 

[Gib Bogle]

On 4/05/2012 8:55 p.m., Morten Leikvoll wrote:

This is an old funny story, but apparently you can still get it..

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-19/german-firm-bemoans-loss-of-incandescent-light-bulbs-sells-heatballs.html

I like it! When my family tell me off for leaving lights on (in winter)
I tell them that they are for heating. They say "But that's an
insignificant amount of heating". You can imagine my response.

 

On May 4, 5:43 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 2, 6:40 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:

snip

Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it runs the
price of cheese and milk up.

If I read this right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't see any
positive feedback runaway here...

a) It's doubled in 3 years.

a.1) It'll probably halve in three more...

Only if we change course. We've not only had more applicants due to
poverty, but we've lowered the standards to qualify. And, they've
been advertising.

b) That's a lot of money.

Not in Bizarro Government World. No matter how strange you think it is,
it's much stranger yet. Especially with food, the net effect *could* be
quite small

You mean because the recipients pay taxes, and spend the money with
people who pay taxes, producing offsetting revenue?

I'd re-think that. And, it still robs taxpayers. $70B is $700 each
for 100M taxpayers.

( was it you pointing me to "King Corn"?

<blush>

Yeah, like
that .... ) The marginal cost and materials used to make
that stuff is pretty low, because the supply is doubly-regulated - by
subsidies and by the futures markets.

c) You're not counting all the zillions of other handout programs.
Together, that's BIG money.

All that is true enough.

We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of
production. Because you have to absorb facts.

That exact argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution
began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still
lots to do.

This seems different. We've had in essence no improvement in employment
since about 1980, other than bubbles. This while GDP has been pretty
healthy.

We've had more and more people working (until the past three or four
years). People have new ideas, then start small businesses, which
drives hiring.

People are not doing that under the current regime's oppression, hence
the hiring deficit. That *is* extremely bad, but easily solved.

The proto-Marxists and Marxists were wrong for technical reasons. People
who point to this like me will be wrong for other reasons we don't
know about. But that leaves the here and now...

We've gone from what, 80% of population in agriculture to<3%,
because of machines, yet we produce more food than ever. Was that
bad?

Oh, absolutely. No doubt. But if I consider
that a data point that indicates that we may continue
to have unemployment problems. As happened with agriculture
happened with industry.

Of course. There's always turnover, always creative destruction in
progress somewhere. That's healthy, how we adapt.

At this writing, because of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment
Act of 1979, unemployment is in scope for government. It's
probably an ironic coincidence, but just as poverty stopped
dropping after the passage of Johnson's Great Society,
unemployment has been a fact of life since.

It's a two-fer: paying people not to work encourages many to do that,
and the wet blanket that puts on everyone else slows job growth &
hiring.

Regulation is choking American growth. I despise legions of turkeys
demanding me to fill out this and file that, all for their pleasure.
It didn't used to be like this. My grandpa blasted stumps out of his
CA yard with dynamite. Today he'd be arrested.

A proper Hayekian would shrug and say "of course." Government
creates bubbles... I guess my point is that we appear
not to be able to keep our hands off it, so we need to
do it better. As it is, we're stuck.

It can never be done better centrally, and not by politicians. They
bend it to their purposes, not ours.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Les Cargill]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 4, 5:43 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 2, 6:40 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:

snip

Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it
runs the price of cheese and milk up.

If I read this
right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't see any
positive feedback runaway here...

a) It's doubled in 3 years.

a.1) It'll probably halve in three more...

Only if we change course. We've not only had more applicants due to
poverty, but we've lowered the standards to qualify. And, they've
been advertising.

Possibly. The rebound from every downturn since the '81 one has been
worse ( unless you were in the hot industry for a bubble ).

I *really* think that people have strong preference for jobs,
very close to universally. We have TV shows about people working
now - Holmes is one. Were there movieds about carpentry in the '30s?
I don't think there were...

b) That's a lot of money.

Not in Bizarro Government World. No matter how strange you think
it is, it's much stranger yet. Especially with food, the net
effect *could* be quite small

You mean because the recipients pay taxes, and spend the money with
people who pay taxes, producing offsetting revenue?

Partly that, but mostly that the real ( as in nonmonetary ) costs are
quite low. I've never actually seen it measured.

I'd re-think that. And, it still robs taxpayers. $70B is $700 each
for 100M taxpayers.

I understand. Thing is, if it's really for people who are just
completely boned otherwise, I don't mind paying that at all.

I have to wonder if there's not room in the world for a
not-for-profit that tries to eliminate dependence on government.
As much bluster as there is on the subject, you'd think there would be.

But I suspect that this is like people who also don't send money
to "help" with the deficit. there's something creepy about doing
that, maybe.

it's a lot easier to talk about it than do something < looks
guiltfully at mirror >.

( was it you pointing me to "King Corn"?

blush

yeah, I'd seen it. great little film. In a way, I sort
of admire the ingenuity of the system, but I never looked
at farms the same way again.

I'd love for somebody to do followup films like King
Corn on the wholesale and retail ends of food. it's a huge
process.

Yeah, like that .... ) The marginal cost and materials used to make
that stuff is pretty low, because the supply is doubly-regulated -
by subsidies and by the futures markets.

c) You're not counting all the zillions of other handout
programs. Together, that's BIG money.

All that is true enough.

We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of
production. Because you have to absorb facts.

That exact argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution
began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still
lots to do.

This seems different. We've had in essence no improvement in
employment since about 1980, other than bubbles. This while GDP
has been pretty healthy.

We've had more and more people working (until the past three or four
years). People have new ideas, then start small businesses, which
drives hiring.

People are not doing that under the current regime's oppression,
hence the hiring deficit. That *is* extremely bad, but easily
solved.

Problem is - the trend predates the present administration. And the
current regime has evolved from Clinton to Bush and now to Obama in a
very straight line manner. There's a mass of common principles
between the three. it's even true in Britain for the same
time frames.

In a way, this was true of Reagan, but not nearly as much. I don't
mean them except as era markers.

I don't think who's POTUS matters for this. It's bigger than
they are.

The proto-Marxists and Marxists were wrong for technical reasons.
People who point to this like me will be wrong for other reasons
we don't know about. But that leaves the here and now...

We've gone from what, 80% of population in agriculture to<3%,
because of machines, yet we produce more food than ever. Was
that bad?

Oh, absolutely. No doubt. But if I consider that a data point that
indicates that we may continue to have unemployment problems. As
happened with agriculture happened with industry.

Of course. There's always turnover, always creative destruction in
progress somewhere. That's healthy, how we adapt.

Right. We get a massive benefit from it. We'd still like
to have our cake and eat it too..

At this writing, because of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment
Act of 1979, unemployment is in scope for government. It's
probably an ironic coincidence, but just as poverty stopped
dropping after the passage of Johnson's Great Society, unemployment
has been a fact of life since.

It's a two-fer: paying people not to work encourages many to do that,
and the wet blanket that puts on everyone else slows job growth&
hiring.

By '65, people had been leaving rural areas for Detroit and
other places for quite a while. The problem with *that* is
that the large firm began to die around then*...

*and nobody is explaining this well other than Schumpeter.

I'm not sure that the people who draw on public assistance
are forsaking very good jobs - if there's any job at all for
them. Dunno about you, but I've had jobs where the company
crippled itself to where I wasn't getting much done... it
was a relief to get out and find another job, even if that
meant a layoff.

Regulation is choking American growth. I despise legions of turkeys
demanding me to fill out this and file that, all for their pleasure.
It didn't used to be like this. My grandpa blasted stumps out of
his CA yard with dynamite. Today he'd be arrested.

I am not so sure it's choking growth per se. It's doubtless expensive,
but the figures say that there's simply not enough money
in the right places.

Dunno - then I think of RoHS and...

A proper Hayekian would shrug and say "of course." Government
creates bubbles... I guess my point is that we appear not to be
able to keep our hands off it, so we need to do it better. As it
is, we're stuck.

It can never be done better centrally, and not by politicians.

A central authority simply doesn't have the *bandwidth*.

They bend it to their purposes, not ours.

Yep. They almost *have* to. Politics is quite competitive. It's
like the worst of both worlds.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

--
Les Cargill

 

On May 4, 9:04 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 4, 5:43 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com>  wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 2, 6:40 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com>   wrote:

snip

Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
 costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it
runs the price of cheese and milk up.

If I read this
right:http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't see any
positive feedback runaway here...

a) It's doubled in 3 years.

a.1) It'll probably halve in three more...

Only if we change course.  We've not only had more applicants due to
 poverty, but we've lowered the standards to qualify.  And, they've
been advertising.

Possibly. The rebound from every downturn since the '81 one has been
worse  ( unless you were in the hot industry for a bubble ).

Reagan rebounded from Carter's policies, an easy comparison.

Since then, we've damped everything with regulation and requirements.
It's simply physically harder, riskier--and more and more expensive--
to start anything as a result.

I *really* think that people have strong preference for jobs,
very close to universally. We have TV shows about people working
now - Holmes is one. Were there movieds about carpentry in the '30s?
I don't think there were...

<shrug> Fewer and fewer people seem interested in working. Target
was offering a good wage--couldn't get any takers (pun intended).
They made nearly as much not working, and that was a lot easier.

b) That's a lot of money.

Not in Bizarro Government World. No matter how strange you think
it is, it's much stranger yet. Especially with food, the net
effect *could* be quite small

You mean because the recipients pay taxes, and spend the money with
people who pay taxes, producing offsetting revenue?

Partly that, but mostly that the real ( as in nonmonetary ) costs are
quite low. I've never actually seen it measured.

I'd re-think that.  And, it still robs taxpayers.  $70B is $700 each
 for 100M taxpayers.

I understand. Thing is, if it's really for people who are just
completely boned otherwise, I don't mind paying that at all.

I have to wonder if there's not room in the world for a
not-for-profit that tries to eliminate dependence on government.
As much bluster as there is on the subject, you'd think there would be.

But I suspect that this is like people who also don't send money
to "help" with the deficit. there's something creepy about doing
that, maybe.

People don't send in money against the deficit because they know it'll
just get spent.

<snip>

We've had more and more people working (until the past three or four
 years).  People have new ideas, then start small businesses, which
drives hiring.

People are not doing that under the current regime's oppression,
hence the hiring deficit.  That *is* extremely bad, but easily
solved.

Problem is - the trend predates the present administration. And the
current regime has evolved from Clinton to Bush and now to Obama in a
very straight line manner. There's a mass of common principles
between the three. it's even true in Britain for the same
time frames.

http://jan.ocregister.com/2011/11/29/u-s-entrepreneurs-reduce-startup-activity/76033/
"The United States has fewer entrepreneurs starting businesses and
more closing their doors, [...]

However, in 2010, the number of U.S. entrepreneurs closing down their
businesses was second highest [...]"

In a way, this was true of Reagan, but not nearly as much.  I don't
mean them except as era markers.

I don't think who's POTUS matters for this. It's bigger than
they are.

POTUS is running around attacking various companies, industries, and
employers. That works. He's killed small airplane sales with just
one of his many blunders, for example.


[...]

Regulation is choking American growth.  I despise legions of turkeys
 demanding me to fill out this and file that, all for their pleasure.
 It didn't used to be like this.  My grandpa blasted stumps out of
his CA yard with dynamite.  Today he'd be arrested.

I am not so sure it's choking growth per se. It's doubtless expensive,
but the figures say that there's simply not enough money
in the right places.

Dunno - then I think of RoHS and...

Try just reading the unAffordable Care Act. Then Dodd-Frank.

A proper Hayekian would shrug and say "of course." Government
creates bubbles... I guess my point is that we appear not to be
able to keep our hands off it, so we need to do it better. As it
is, we're stuck.

It can never be done better centrally, and not by politicians.

A central authority simply doesn't have the *bandwidth*.

Yes. Neither the information, propagation speed, or compute power,
and they never can. There's too much, too widespread, and too fuzzy.

That's why Barack's "investments" for all of us in things he doesn't
understand will never match experts (or even lay people) investing
their own money.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Les Cargill]

josephkk wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:43:55 -0500, Les Cargill<lcargill99@comcast.com
wrote:


Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
no one could believe it.


They should have, sounds like. That's not what I am talking about.

The letter granting disability stated that it
was obvious that I would never be able to work again. Do you really
think that I want to scrape by on $1021 a month, instead of being able
to work? You should try it sometime, before you spout off. Then you
can see what it's like to go without anything more than the basics.
Hoping that a 15 year old truck will run for a few more years. Spending
a lot of time changing dressings on two year old wounds and needing
medical care that you can't afford. How would you like blood, puss and
plasma running down your legs daily, for years? Doctors telling you
that 'You aren't old enough to have that problem' when you've coped with
it for a decade, or more.



Where did anything I wrote apply to you? You have an obvious diability.
I'd say the system worked, with a handful of horror stories to
go along with it.

You have not been following Michael's situation very well, it is an
ongoing horror story about how poorly it is working.

Ah. I am very sorry to hear that. No, I would not say that I
have followed it well.

p.s. Michael PM me.

?-)

--
Les Cargill

 

[Les Cargill]

josephkk wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:46:10 -0500, Les Cargill<lcargill99@comcast.com
wrote:
snip

You couldn't identify a leftist with a compass, map and a big orange
arrow saying "LEFTIST HERE!." s.e.d is a bastion of utter, complete and
total economic ignorance. It's amusing.

Only Sloman and miso spew more economic nonsense than you.

I rest my case.

?-/

--
Les Cargill

 

[josephkk]

On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:08:39 GMT, Chiron
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 01 May 2012 05:46:33 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote:

Of course that'll never happen, since the formulas are always too
complicated for anyone to understand. Measuring everyone's "need" is
complicated.

Not so difficult. We all need roughly the same things - food, water,
shelter, clothing, medical care, safe place to live. We just don't want
to ensure everyone has those things, because we feel some people don't
"deserve" it - they are unworthy.

As long as we keep trying to decide who "deserves" resources, we're going
to have some mighty bizarre rules about who gets what. So we invent a
sort of merit-based structure; yes, we'll feed you if you're "worthy."
But if you're an addict, we won't - no benefits, including no treatment
for your addiction. Get clean, and *then* we'll help you.

Not saying I want to subsidize a person's alcohol or drug use; just
saying that we need to be treating such people as sick, not bad, and to
ensure that they can get the treatment they need. Otherwise they stay
sick, but don't necessarily die before producing offspring they can't
nurture.

I don't think there's a quick fix for all this, and I'm not advocating
just throwing money at the problem, since that isn't going to work. But
I do think we could simplify things if we quit worrying about who
"deserves" things, and focus more on who needs them - and make sure they
get it in time to make a difference.

But as someone hinted, it would be cheaper to just execute anyone who
doesn't work out in society. Don't think of it as the death penalty;
think of it as putting them out of our misery.

If you want to receive welfare fine, sterilization is a prerequisite.
Want your fertility back, you have to pay for it 100%.

This may reduce the problem somewhat.

?-)

 

[josephkk]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:35:59 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<paul@hovnanian.com> wrote:

Artemus wrote:


One of the sensors that feed the ignition module may have a flakey
ground. There shouldn't be a lot of them on something that old. My
'75 280Z had an intermittant problem like yours which drove me crazy.
2 dealers were stumped. I finally nailed it by driving around with a
battery powered o'scope, DMM, and a bunch of wires going to the
engine to tap various test points. Turned out it was one of the water
temp sensors which caused the fuel injection pulses to jump to max
width, flooding the engine.
Art

This isn't an ECM. Its just an ignition module to replace points ignition.

It has a magnetic pickup which is OK and puts out pulses even when the
system is dead. It has +12 in from the ignition switch (connections checked
and cleaned). It has a ground (cleaned and an additional ground ran down to
the battery/frame ground bolt) and connection to the coil (-). The coil
also has +12V through an ignition resistor* (replaced in the process of
diagnosis, no improvement). So its a very simple system.

I've caught in inoperative a few times parked in the driveway, so I've been
able to check the basic voltage levels and the pickup output**. When I'm
not trying to get someplace, that is. More often than not, its a matter of
just saying "Screw it. I've gotta be someplace" and just switch vehicles.
Fortunately, this is one of my rather large fleet of 4x4s.

*Sort of an ignition resistor. Toyota had this genius idea to run a
resistance wire (about 5 feet long) through the wiring bundle. Try
inspecting and/or replacing that. So I put in a standard ceramic block type
resistor in the coil (+) side, bypassing that wire.

**The interesting diagnostic was checking the coil output with the timing
light. Putting the strobe on the coil fixes the problem. Every time, within
seconds. In fact, the fix is so reliable, I just carry the damned timing
light around with me.

Try replacing the ignition coil itself.

?-)

 

[josephkk]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 15:47:47 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2012 16:39:13 -0500, amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

On 5/2/2012 11:20 AM, Charlie E. wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
eacaws@gmail.com> wrote:

snip
everyday lives, and those services are breaking down under the load.

And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is anything
wrong!

Charlie

Yes, there is no longer shame!
Here in Florida they have changed food stamps to EBT.
Electronic Funds Transfer
My business is selling shrimp, I have people ask "do you take EBT?"
I don't, but when I'm ask, I have this bubble over my head that says,
"if the taxpayers are buying the protein you need for survival, you
should buy $2.00 lb chicken rather than $10 lb shrimp."
But that's the mentality, it's not their money so they don't care.
Mikek

Sell them some old shrimp... make the world a better place ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Maybe your value map works that way. I prefer to look in the mirror when
i wash my face.

?-/

 

[josephkk]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:10:30 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<paul@hovnanian.com> wrote:

Artemus wrote:

Since a timing light always remedies the problem that points to the
HV side of the ignition. In particular the coil to distributor wire. You
say you've replaced everything. Does that include all the HV wires,
dist cap, rotor, coil, and plugs? All of those together are cheap
compared the ignition module.

Yes. New coil, wires, cap, rotor, plugs. Although this is an all on/off
problem, so its doubtfull all the plugs would fail simultaneously.

Aw phooey. You have already done that.

My old Toyota truck is only 28 years old so you have me beat.
A couple of years ago it started acting up by intermittently missing
and failing emissions inspection big time. Long story short, a new
set of plug wires had things humming again and added 2mpg to
boot.
Art

 

[josephkk]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:40:39 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com>
wrote:

Charlie E. wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:33:32 -0500, Les Cargill
lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

snip

You see, you define relief = welfare, when it encompasses a much
larger number of programs today. You should go to the grocery store
more often. It seems like about half the folks in the check out are
doing the 'food stamp shuffle' where they pick one from column A,
put all their 'not-allowed' products in group B, and spend an extra
five minutes paying for everything.


This is true. Scope is always iffy in these threads.

I thought the subject was "welfare moms, entire households... on
the dole" above. That sounds suspiciously like *welfare* welfare,
not a modest food subsidy to the working poor.

Once upon a time, there were "commdities". You went to the ... USDA?
office, signed up they gave you stuff like powdered milk, beans, cheese.

These were in essence oversupply bought by the USDA as part of farm
subsidies.

Some genius decided that rather than keep that whole infrastructure in
place, why we'd just have "generic" foodstuffs and allow people to
buy the stuff in stores. To replace the subsidy, food stamps were
invented. Maybe it saved money; I dunno. Ex ante, it looks like
it would be very price-distorting, and it is.

Other than the delay in line, I doubt the whole program really
costs *anything* in real terms. It's kind a' like WIC; it runs
the price of cheese and milk up.

If I read this right:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

It's (rounding up) $78B. That's in the noise. I don't
see any positive feedback runaway here...

We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of production.
Because you have to absorb facts.


We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that significant a
load on the economy - under 5% of GDP (more like 2-3% ) .

Disability, SS and Medicare are a problem.

When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job
market, they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...

People dependent on the government voted for more government.
Government that promised to 'take care' of people got reelected.
So, now we have a society in which half of the population doesn't
pay income taxes.


That isn't a problem in itself, except that it reflects the fact
that wages are flat as a still pond.

No, it is a problem. We have convinced over 50% of Americans that
they should get a 'free ride' from everyone else, or actually get
something more from everyone else. It is a pernicous attitude that
should be stopped!


I do not give a rat's patoot about *anybody's* "attitude". We do
progressive taxation in the US. This is a good thing, for cultural as
well as economic efficiency reasons.

You should, especially when it becomes the majority of people. Who them
vote themselves largesse out of your and every other productive person's
pocket.

The reason people are out of work is that more and more work
is done by machines. It's not like we're short on goods and
services. If you're gonna enjoy the resulting low prices,
you gotta pony up to keep people alive who got "made redundant"
by that process.

I am willing to help them to this extent, cheap job training for an
available job / upgrading their employability. Then we have more employed
and productive people and things get better. Capiche?

We *have* absorb the fact that work is a declining factor of production.
Because you have to absorb facts.


More and more people are encouraged to use government relief
services in their everyday lives, and those services are breaking
down under the load.

And nutcases like Bill still don't understand that there is
anything wrong!

Charlie

 

[josephkk]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:43:55 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com>
wrote:

Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
no one could believe it.


They should have, sounds like. That's not what I am talking about.

The letter granting disability stated that it
was obvious that I would never be able to work again. Do you really
think that I want to scrape by on $1021 a month, instead of being able
to work? You should try it sometime, before you spout off. Then you
can see what it's like to go without anything more than the basics.
Hoping that a 15 year old truck will run for a few more years. Spending
a lot of time changing dressings on two year old wounds and needing
medical care that you can't afford. How would you like blood, puss and
plasma running down your legs daily, for years? Doctors telling you
that 'You aren't old enough to have that problem' when you've coped with
it for a decade, or more.



Where did anything I wrote apply to you? You have an obvious diability.
I'd say the system worked, with a handful of horror stories to
go along with it.

You have not been following Michael's situation very well, it is an
ongoing horror story about how poorly it is working.

p.s. Michael PM me.

?-)

 

[josephkk]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:46:10 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2012 15:41:24 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Les Cargill wrote:

When people who don't have a lot of savings go out of the job market,
they go on disability. We can't shoot 'em...


Fuck you. I ended up on disability a couple years before retirement
because my health failed. I spent my life savings over three years and
went hungry for a while, before I filed. No one was going to hire
anyone in my condition, and the VA approved my disability so fast that
no one could believe it. The letter granting disability stated that it
was obvious that I would never be able to work again. Do you really
think that I want to scrape by on $1021 a month, instead of being able
to work? You should try it sometime, before you spout off. Then you
can see what it's like to go without anything more than the basics.
Hoping that a 15 year old truck will run for a few more years. Spending
a lot of time changing dressings on two year old wounds and needing
medical care that you can't afford. How would you like blood, puss and
plasma running down your legs daily, for years? Doctors telling you
that 'You aren't old enough to have that problem' when you've coped with
it for a decade, or more.

Cargill is another one of those useless leftist weenies who, when Obama
completely collapses the country, can be shot without penalty ;-)

Hang in there, Michael, so you can participate !-)

...Jim Thompson


You couldn't identify a leftist with a compass, map and a big orange
arrow saying "LEFTIST HERE!." s.e.d is a bastion of utter, complete and
total economic ignorance. It's amusing.

Only Sloman and miso spew more economic nonsense than you.

?-/