OT: James Arthur, the perfect market and the perfect op amp

[Nico Coesel]

Rich Grise <richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell
you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap.

That's a bit simplistic. There are a lot of products on the market
with all kinds of hidden costs. If the government doesn't make rules
then you could end up buying a product which costs you a lot more
money than you expected. Over here a lot of crappy financial products
where sold. On paper they looked okay but it takes a real financial
expert to uncover that the product will actually empty the customers'
wallet. Insurance companies in NL will have to pay back billions of
euro's in the next few years. Some probably will go out of business.

IOW: companies can steal from you by obfusticating their product
descriptions and/or not tell you about the hidden costs. Without rules
companies WILL steal from you whenever they can.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Nico Coesel]

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

[snip]

What a pile of socialist crap... no customers, no income. And "Letting" is
not a description of Democracy.

Its not socialist crap. You have no idea what socialism actually is.

The point the "Yes men" are trying to make is that companies don't
care whether you live or die because of their products as long as they
make a profit! The current recession has once again shown companies
behave exactly like little kids. They need clear rules and guidance
otherwise everything turns into a big mess.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 15, 12:36 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 12, 11:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any
kind of human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when
computors were human beings with slide rules. The modellers
reasoned that if the market was perfect, it would be mathematically
tractable, and proceeded to generate economic models based on this
assumption, which worked tolerably well, for the right kind of
problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect
op amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite
gain, so the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely
determined by resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback
networks involving capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it
won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the
design involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of
the real op amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the
circuit to take these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and
Keynes strategies for getting around them.

Presumably - like most right-wingers - he has confused government
interventions aimed at taming the weaknesses of real markets,
roughly equivalent to the frequency compensation capacitors that
cut back the high frequency gain of real op amps - with the
communist system of central planning, which solves the problem of
delayed feedback in real markets by going over to feed-forward
control which works - after a fashion - but doesn't do the kind of
self-optimisation on-the-fly that real markets can manage if you
can tame their natural tendency to do boom and bust or collapse
into self-serving monopolies.

Because central planning didn't work well, he believes that any
kind of government intervention is equally flawed, throwing out the
Keynesian baby with the communist bath-water.

Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to see any problem with the
conceptually similar anti-trust legislation that is aimed at
preventing monopolies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

but he can't see that the natural tendency of traders to keep their
money in the bank when the economy is in recession - and profitable
business opportunities are rare - is equally unhelpful.

You're making it too complicated, which I always take as a sign
someone doesn't understand something. Ditto oversimplification, per
Einstein.

I'm not making it too complicated, I'm just including stuff that you
refuse to think about

What you're missing with op amps is feedback, which brings even a
lousy op amp comes close to ideal. They self-correct. That's why we
use them.

If they've got built-in compensation capacitors. I'm old enough to have
used the uA709, which didn't, and in fact needed two compensation
capacitors and a resistor to prevent it oscillating when used with a low
closed-loop gain.

They only self-correct in a useful way if you severely cripple the high
frequency gain.

Free markets aren't perfect. They don't have to be. Markets driven
by economic self-interest self-correct if you set the rules right.

But you've got to enforce the rules. Anti-monopoly rules are pretty
straight-forward. Anti-boom-and-bust rules involve fooling around with
the the prime rate to temper the systems' natural tendency to
over-shoot, and that can't handle large excursion in "business
confidence" driven by events like the GFC, so you've got to work other
levers as well.

That result holds true over a broad range of conditions, and the rules
don't even have to be very good. The players compete to best serve
society, as measured by their customers' (the citizens') willingness
to trade their own hard-earned money for whatever good or service the
producer offers.

Adam Smith's "invisible hand". Sadly, it doesn't do a thing to damp down
market instabilities.

The usual caveats apply.

- Setting the rules right is not accomplished by some guy with a
teleprompter deciding to try a hand at designing cars, or power plants
or batteries; or deciding to plunder and redistribute things to his
supporters, or other such.

That's your perception of what's going on? You do live in
cloud-cuckoo-land.

That kind of looting generates fear,
causing people to clam up. Rational people fear Barack Obama,. They
hunker down, seek shelter, and run from him if they can.

That just right-wing political propaganda. Your current administration
isn't looting, plundering or redistributing, and when the previous
administration tried to plunder Irak's oil (and made a total hash of it)
you were perfectly happy to support their spuriously-justified piracy.

- Neither can the guy with the teleprompter replace the function of
local feedback by constantly diddling from afar with a large phase
delay, imperfect knowledge, and no idea what the hell he's doing.

You can't - or won't - understand what he is trying to do, but you
really ought to have enough sense to realise that he isn't trying to
replace local feedback by "constantly diddling from afar" which is
central control in a planned economy, but rather trying to adjust the
willingness of every participant in the market to invest their money.

Lowering the prime rate in a recession so that it is cheaper for
everybody to borrow start-up capital, thus making it likely that more
people will expand their businesses or start new businesses is the very
antithesis of "constantly diddling from afar".

Like adding a bizarre, emotional network that's non-linear and non-
monotonic in time and voltage to an op-amp's feedback, that makes the
thing wildly unstable.

That's the unavoidable human element in the free market - consumer
confidence and market confidence - which has to be compensated out if
you want to avoid repeating cycles of boom and bust.

It also re-directs the system from serving the
public good, to serving political self-interest.

More right-wing political propaganda

- The economic self-interest requirement is violated when you take the
rewards of productive activity and redistribute them to unproductive
enterprises.

That's not what pump-priming does - it borrows money that is not being
used and gives it to people who will spend it.

Government is always taking taking some of the rewards of productive
activity and redistributing them unproductive enterprises, like the
defence forces and the police, but they also spend what they get in
taxes in more productive ways, by building roads, sewers and other
infra-structure. Pump-priming happens to be one of those activities -
you don't believe this, but that's your flat-earth economics ...

Over some continum it makes more and more sense to suck
off the public dole than to work and produce things.

More right-wing propaganda. Some people claim to prefer to live of the
dole, but this is basically part of the 5% of the population who need
psychiatric care at some point in their lives. The sane majority wants
work - it's most people's primary social activity and most people define
themselves in terms of what they do when they are in work, and feel
diminished when they aren't.

You speak of government interventions with the faith that people are
too dumb to manage their own affairs, and that a gaggle of politicians
can ride the gain and offset controls and close all the necessary
feedback loops in real time to better effect.

That's more right-wing propaganda, and has nothing to do with the kind
of government intervention that Keynes encouraged and justified.

Managing consumer confidence isn't preventing consumers from managing
their own affairs, it's just adjusting the environment for the community
as a whole so that more people will be encouraged to invest (in a
recession) or to save (if the economy is getting over-heated) than would
be the case in the absence of that influence. If you've got a really
good idea you'll still invest in it in the depths of a recession, and if
you can't come up with a plausible market plan you won't invest at the
peak of a boom.

That view is flawed in every respect.

Since you are describing the kind of government intervention that proved
inadequate in the USSR, I have to agree that it isn't a good way to run
a country. It's not the kind of government intervention that is going on
in the USA at the moment, and the proposition that the two approaches
have anything in common - beyond being equally unpalatable to people to
the right of the Tea Party - is entirely fatuous.

Op amps aren't very smart, but they control themselves
extremely well from one, single, simple guiding principle, provided
you don't heap too many parasitic and or perverse burdens on them.

And they've got that built in frequency compensation capacitor, which
evolution has failed to incorporate in the components that make up the
free market.

You, at bottom, want to replace the op-amp's simple, clear, linear
mandate--subtract and multiply--with Obamacare and produce a stable,
predictable, optimized output. Good luck with that.

Your proposition seems to be that anything short of a totally
uninhibited free market is Soviet-style central planning.

This is the digital approach to politics - everybody who is less right
wing than you are is clearly a supporter of Marxist-Leninism. It is a
simple idea, but does have the disadvantage of being utterly ridiculous.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Aug 12, 11:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

James Arthur believes that the free market is perfect; perhaps not
absolutely prefect, but better than any market distorted by any kind of
human - government - intervention.

Although he doesn't seem to realise this, his delusion is based on a
useful simplification devised by economic modellers back when computors
were human beings with slide rules. The modellers reasoned that if the
market was perfect, it would be mathematically tractable, and proceeded
to generate economic models based on this assumption, which worked
tolerably well, for the right kind of problems.

This is exactly equivalent to the way we use the idea of a perfect op
amp in roughing out a circuit - the perfect op amp has infinite gain, so
the closed loop gain of the op amp stage is entirely determined by
resistor ratios (impedance ratios for feedback networks involving
capacitors and inductors) and no delay, so it won't oscillate.

We all know that op amps aren't perfect, so the next stage of the design
involves figuring out the effects of the imperfections of the real op
amp that looks like it suits the job, and changing the circuit to take
these effects into account.

James Arthur doesn't do practical economics, so he doesn't have any
grasp of the imperfections of real markets, and he has some kind of
problem accepting Keynes' insights into these imperfection, and Keynes
strategies for getting around them.

Presumably - like most right-wingers - he has confused government
interventions aimed at taming the weaknesses of real markets, roughly
equivalent to the frequency compensation capacitors that cut back the
high frequency gain of real op amps - with the communist system of
central planning, which solves the problem of delayed feedback in real
markets by going over to feed-forward control which works - after a
fashion - but doesn't do the kind of self-optimisation on-the-fly that
real markets can manage if you can tame their natural tendency to do
boom and bust or collapse into self-serving monopolies.

Because central planning didn't work well, he believes that any kind of
government intervention is equally flawed, throwing out the Keynesian
baby with the communist bath-water.

Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to see any problem with the conceptually
similar anti-trust legislation that is aimed at preventing monopolies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

but he can't see that the natural tendency of traders to keep their
money in the bank when the economy is in recession - and profitable
business opportunities are rare - is equally unhelpful.

You're making it too complicated, which I always take as a sign
someone doesn't understand something. Ditto oversimplification, per
Einstein.

What you're missing with op amps is feedback, which brings even a
lousy op amp comes close to ideal. They self-correct. That's why we
use them.

Free markets aren't perfect. They don't have to be. Markets driven
by economic self-interest self-correct if you set the rules right.
That result holds true over a broad range of conditions, and the rules
don't even have to be very good. The players compete to best serve
society, as measured by their customers' (the citizens') willingness
to trade their own hard-earned money for whatever good or service the
producer offers.

The usual caveats apply.

- Setting the rules right is not accomplished by some guy with a
teleprompter deciding to try a hand at designing cars, or power plants
or batteries; or deciding to plunder and redistribute things to his
supporters, or other such. That kind of looting generates fear,
causing people to clam up. Rational people fear Barack Obama,. They
hunker down, seek shelter, and run from him if they can.

- Neither can the guy with the teleprompter replace the function of
local feedback by constantly diddling from afar with a large phase
delay, imperfect knowledge, and no idea what the hell he's doing.
Like adding a bizarre, emotional network that's non-linear and non-
monotonic in time and voltage to an op-amp's feedback, that makes the
thing wildly unstable. It also re-directs the system from serving the
public good, to serving political self-interest.

- The economic self-interest requirement is violated when you take the
rewards of productive activity and redistribute them to unproductive
enterprises. Over some continum it makes more and more sense to suck
off the public dole than to work and produce things.

You speak of government interventions with the faith that people are
too dumb to manage their own affairs, and that a gaggle of politicians
can ride the gain and offset controls and close all the necessary
feedback loops in real time to better effect. That view is flawed in
every respect. Op amps aren't very smart, but they control themselves
extremely well from one, single, simple guiding principle, provided
you don't heap too many parasitic and or perverse burdens on them.

You, at bottom, want to replace the op-amp's simple, clear, linear
mandate--subtract and multiply--with Obamacare and produce a stable,
predictable, optimized output. Good luck with that.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:06:24 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

[snip]

What a pile of socialist crap... no customers, no income. And "Letting" is
not a description of Democracy.

Its not socialist crap. You have no idea what socialism actually is.

The point the "Yes men" are trying to make is that companies don't
care whether you live or die because of their products as long as they
make a profit!

Of course not... why should they?? Companies don't owe you shit, other than
to stand by any product they sell you. Nobody _makes_ you purchase any
particular product. Or are you of the Omamamania crowd... you're forced to
buy whatever the government orders you to?

The current recession has once again shown companies
behave exactly like little kids. They need clear rules and guidance
otherwise everything turns into a big mess.

Utter nonsense. What we are seeing is companies so afraid of the Obama
policies they're sitting tight until an administration change.

...Jim Thompson

[On the Road, in New York]
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

On Aug 14, 1:21 am, Bill Bowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>
wrote:

Well , I don't know, but gold seems to be a hedge against the riots
going on in London. If they burn down all the stores, what will there
be to eat?

Under Keynes London's riots are a positive boon. Think of all the
construction needed to fix the damage, all the workers that will be
needed for repairs, all the materials that will be purchased. GDP will
soar!

On top of these Keynes adds his multiplier--each worker with a new job
will spend his money at the shopkeepers' stores, who will spend their
new income yet somewhere else. The cycle repeats several times before
taxes at each transfer reduce the original sum into nothingness, for
net multiplier claimed of 1.89 or such.

To a Keynesian, your house is worth twice as much burned down as left
standing. They call this "stimulus."

At least you have a little gold to trade for some bread?
That's better than trying to trade stocks or bonds for bread. Maybe
oil would be a better bet? How about toilet paper?

Looks like Keynesian economics isn't working any more? Maybe this is
the end of all that BS?

It is. Regular Americans see it. You can't spend your way out of
debt. Slicing the loaf thinner doesn't make it bigger. A gov't whose
plan is setting neighbors against each other, promising each one more
of the other's stuff does not create more stuff, but less.

Krugman squeals to the contrary, but having gotten his way twice, he's
finding it harder and harder to convince people that it's all
working. "Oh, phrenology works" he insists, "you're just not feeling
the bumps right."

It's not working. According to Keynes and his multiplier, $1T in stim-
u-louse should've produced 20+ million jobs. We got 500k (and they're
temporary). It should've spurred all sorts of positive-feedback snap-
back economic activity--if it were right--but the promise of looting
spurs mostly pathological activity, especially hiding and hunkering
down.

Krugman's a political activist, kind of an economic Michael Moore.
The Nobel committee accidentally gave Moore's prize for being fat and
obnoxious to Krugman, who's kind of a dwarf.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Nico Coesel]

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:06:24 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

[snip]

What a pile of socialist crap... no customers, no income. And "Letting" is
not a description of Democracy.

Its not socialist crap. You have no idea what socialism actually is.

The point the "Yes men" are trying to make is that companies don't
care whether you live or die because of their products as long as they
make a profit!

Of course not... why should they?? Companies don't owe you shit, other than
to stand by any product they sell you. Nobody _makes_ you purchase any

The idea that companies stand by their product is something you should
let go. They are only interested in maximising profits. Show me an
honest sales person. They are extinct like dinosaurs.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:30:16 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:06:24 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

[snip]

What a pile of socialist crap... no customers, no income. And "Letting" is
not a description of Democracy.

Its not socialist crap. You have no idea what socialism actually is.

The point the "Yes men" are trying to make is that companies don't
care whether you live or die because of their products as long as they
make a profit!

Of course not... why should they?? Companies don't owe you shit, other than
to stand by any product they sell you. Nobody _makes_ you purchase any

The idea that companies stand by their product is something you should
let go. They are only interested in maximising profits. Show me an
honest sales person. They are extinct like dinosaurs.

Sales people are _normally_ dishonest. Why do you expect differently? Do you
need mommy to help you decide your purchases? I think you do ;-)

Does _anyone_ _owe_ you anything? Nope. You're on your own. Grow up and
take care of yourself.

...Jim Thompson

[On the Road, in New York]
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:04:53 -0700, Rich Grise
<richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell
you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap. With government, you don't have that option. But they
worship the ground that the bureaucrats slither across.

Cheers!
Rich

Companies can steal, and some reasonable legal protections make sense.
Stealing has been illegal since biblical times.

So, why are all 2x4s actually 1.75x3.75 inches? Why is a 1x12 actually
3/4 x 11? Where is the Consumer Protection Department on this?

John

 

[Les Cargill]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:06:24 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Jim Thompson<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

John Larkin<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

[snip]

What a pile of socialist crap... no customers, no income. And "Letting" is
not a description of Democracy.

Its not socialist crap. You have no idea what socialism actually is.

The point the "Yes men" are trying to make is that companies don't
care whether you live or die because of their products as long as they
make a profit!

Of course not... why should they?? Companies don't owe you shit, other than
to stand by any product they sell you. Nobody _makes_ you purchase any
particular product. Or are you of the Omamamania crowd... you're forced to
buy whatever the government orders you to?

The current recession has once again shown companies
behave exactly like little kids. They need clear rules and guidance
otherwise everything turns into a big mess.

Utter nonsense. What we are seeing is companies so afraid of the Obama
policies they're sitting tight until an administration change.

"Regulatory uncertainty" is mostly a red herring.
<http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/playing-regulatory-uncertainty-card>

We'll get a natural experiment as the court ruling on the individual
mandate plays out in markets, but I predict "no effect". That
may be because they're waiting for a SCOTUS ruling. I'd bet
"no effect" then, too.

Survey data shows weak demand as more of a factor than
regulatory uncertainty.

There's very little actual difference* between Obama's
policies and Bush's ( and there was even less difference
between Bush and Clinton) . Even if say, Rick Perry beat Obama
in 2012, why would anybody think he'd behave differently?

The office is much bigger than one man. I don't think Perry
would have any better advice from Bush41/43 or Clinton than Obama
would, and I have little doubt that either president-emeritus
would hold back for electoral reasons.

*George Will indirectly made this point on Charlie Rose this week...

...Jim Thompson

[On the Road, in New York]

--
Les Cargill

 

[Les Cargill]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:30:16 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Jim Thompson<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:06:24 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Jim Thompson<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

John Larkin<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

[snip]

What a pile of socialist crap... no customers, no income. And "Letting" is
not a description of Democracy.

Its not socialist crap. You have no idea what socialism actually is.

The point the "Yes men" are trying to make is that companies don't
care whether you live or die because of their products as long as they
make a profit!

Of course not... why should they?? Companies don't owe you shit, other than
to stand by any product they sell you. Nobody _makes_ you purchase any

The idea that companies stand by their product is something you should
let go. They are only interested in maximising profits. Show me an
honest sales person. They are extinct like dinosaurs.

Sales people are _normally_ dishonest. Why do you expect differently? Do you
need mommy to help you decide your purchases? I think you do ;-)

*Good* sales people are *NOT* dishonest. They figure out you're wasting
their time and move on. Granted, many people think "Glen Garry Glen
Ross" is a sales course these days...

Does _anyone_ _owe_ you anything? Nope. You're on your own. Grow up and
take care of yourself.

...Jim Thompson

[On the Road, in New York]

--
Les Cargill

 

[Les Cargill]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:04:53 -0700, Rich Grise
richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
John Larkin<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

You blame companies for grotesque government benefits and borrowing?

They fail to realize that companies can't steal from you, but only sell
you their products. If you don't like the company, you can simply not
buy their crap. With government, you don't have that option. But they
worship the ground that the bureaucrats slither across.

Cheers!
Rich

Companies can steal, and some reasonable legal protections make sense.
Stealing has been illegal since biblical times.

So, why are all 2x4s actually 1.75x3.75 inches? Why is a 1x12 actually
3/4 x 11? Where is the Consumer Protection Department on this?

John

So why do people drive on parkways and park on driveways?

--
Les Cargill

 

[Nico Coesel]

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:30:16 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:06:24 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:54:02 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

and europe; look at the debt crisies in europe. Did any government
economists do anything to prevent these? On the contrary, governments
and their financial ministries caused all these messes.

No, greed and total lack of any moral integrity caused the mess! The
problem is that big companies no longer value their customers. Letting
(big) companies do what they want leads to mass destruction.

[snip]

What a pile of socialist crap... no customers, no income. And "Letting" is
not a description of Democracy.

Its not socialist crap. You have no idea what socialism actually is.

The point the "Yes men" are trying to make is that companies don't
care whether you live or die because of their products as long as they
make a profit!

Of course not... why should they?? Companies don't owe you shit, other than
to stand by any product they sell you. Nobody _makes_ you purchase any

The idea that companies stand by their product is something you should
let go. They are only interested in maximising profits. Show me an
honest sales person. They are extinct like dinosaurs.

Sales people are _normally_ dishonest. Why do you expect differently? Do you
need mommy to help you decide your purchases? I think you do ;-)

Does _anyone_ _owe_ you anything? Nope. You're on your own. Grow up and
take care of yourself.

The problem is that for a lot of things you need to depend on
knowledge of others. Take your doctor for example. Does he prescribe
you certain medicines because they work the best or are they the ones
that give him a bigger bonus? Or is he prescribing lesser effective
medicines so you return for another consult he can charge? You'll
never know because he can always make an excuse.

Our whole society (and economic system) relies on people being
trustworthy. Otherwise you'll need to be an expert on anything you
ever buy. Do you test your food before you eat it? I guess not, you
obviously TRUST the person who sold it to you AND the rules provided
by your Government to prevent selling bad food.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:45:15 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 14, 1:30 pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

The idea that companies stand by their product is something you should
let go. They are only interested in maximising profits. Show me an
honest sales person. They are extinct like dinosaurs.

Honest companies prosper because people trust them. Honesty is in
their economic interest, especially if they're going to be around very
long. Honesty maximizes profits. Politicians have no such incentive.

Yesterday I bought an inkjet. I specifically avoided and did NOT buy
a Hewlett-Packard because I don't trust them. How does that help HP?

I used to do the opposite, because once upon a time I knew that if HP
made it, it was excellent. But Carly Fiorina's HP sold me some shoddy
gear. I haven't trusted them since.

That is the natural sequence of events... sell me something shoddy and I'll
never come back.

...Jim Thompson

[On the Road, in New York]
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Nico Coesel]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 14, 1:30=A0pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

The idea that companies stand by their product is something you should
let go. They are only interested in maximising profits. Show me an
honest sales person. They are extinct like dinosaurs.

Honest companies prosper because people trust them. Honesty is in
their economic interest, especially if they're going to be around very
long.

Sorry, but that is a lie. Sales people like to use that to gain your
trust.

Just look at Microsoft and how long they are getting away by selling
crap. Its all about marketing, not about quality. In general: count
the number of adds touting 'new formula', 'better taste', 'stronger
than ever'. Like the original product was crap!

Yesterday I bought an inkjet. I specifically avoided and did NOT buy
a Hewlett-Packard because I don't trust them. How does that help HP?

I used to do the opposite, because once upon a time I knew that if HP
made it, it was excellent. But Carly Fiorina's HP sold me some shoddy
gear. I haven't trusted them since.

HP may have lost one customer but by lowering the prices and quality
they gained hundreds of new customers. HP still has good business gear
but you must be willing to pay a bit more.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 08/14/2011 03:30 PM, Nico Coesel wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 14, 1:30=A0pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

The idea that companies stand by their product is something you should
let go. They are only interested in maximising profits. Show me an
honest sales person. They are extinct like dinosaurs.

Honest companies prosper because people trust them. Honesty is in
their economic interest, especially if they're going to be around very
long.

Sorry, but that is a lie. Sales people like to use that to gain your
trust.

Just look at Microsoft and how long they are getting away by selling
crap. Its all about marketing, not about quality. In general: count
the number of adds touting 'new formula', 'better taste', 'stronger
than ever'. Like the original product was crap!

Yesterday I bought an inkjet. I specifically avoided and did NOT buy
a Hewlett-Packard because I don't trust them. How does that help HP?

I used to do the opposite, because once upon a time I knew that if HP
made it, it was excellent. But Carly Fiorina's HP sold me some shoddy
gear. I haven't trusted them since.

HP may have lost one customer but by lowering the prices and quality
they gained hundreds of new customers. HP still has good business gear
but you must be willing to pay a bit more.

Do you lie like that when it's in your economic interest?

If so, why should I trust what you say?

If not, why do you attribute such behaviour to all others?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

On Aug 14, 1:30 pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

The idea that companies stand by their product is something you should
let go. They are only interested in maximising profits. Show me an
honest sales person. They are extinct like dinosaurs.

Honest companies prosper because people trust them. Honesty is in
their economic interest, especially if they're going to be around very
long. Honesty maximizes profits. Politicians have no such incentive.

Yesterday I bought an inkjet. I specifically avoided and did NOT buy
a Hewlett-Packard because I don't trust them. How does that help HP?

I used to do the opposite, because once upon a time I knew that if HP
made it, it was excellent. But Carly Fiorina's HP sold me some shoddy
gear. I haven't trusted them since.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Nico Coesel]

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 08/14/2011 03:30 PM, Nico Coesel wrote:
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 14, 1:30=A0pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

The idea that companies stand by their product is something you should
let go. They are only interested in maximising profits. Show me an
honest sales person. They are extinct like dinosaurs.

Honest companies prosper because people trust them. Honesty is in
their economic interest, especially if they're going to be around very
long.

Sorry, but that is a lie. Sales people like to use that to gain your
trust.

Just look at Microsoft and how long they are getting away by selling
crap. Its all about marketing, not about quality. In general: count
the number of adds touting 'new formula', 'better taste', 'stronger
than ever'. Like the original product was crap!

Yesterday I bought an inkjet. I specifically avoided and did NOT buy
a Hewlett-Packard because I don't trust them. How does that help HP?

I used to do the opposite, because once upon a time I knew that if HP
made it, it was excellent. But Carly Fiorina's HP sold me some shoddy
gear. I haven't trusted them since.

HP may have lost one customer but by lowering the prices and quality
they gained hundreds of new customers. HP still has good business gear
but you must be willing to pay a bit more.


Do you lie like that when it's in your economic interest?

I do not own HP shares neither am I somehow employed by them.
Actually, when I announced to be self-employed someone warned me my
honesty would cost me money at some point

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 08/14/2011 05:04 PM, Nico Coesel wrote:

Phil Hobbs<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 08/14/2011 03:30 PM, Nico Coesel wrote:
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 14, 1:30=A0pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

The idea that companies stand by their product is something you should
let go. They are only interested in maximising profits. Show me an
honest sales person. They are extinct like dinosaurs.

Honest companies prosper because people trust them. Honesty is in
their economic interest, especially if they're going to be around very
long.

Sorry, but that is a lie. Sales people like to use that to gain your
trust.

Just look at Microsoft and how long they are getting away by selling
crap. Its all about marketing, not about quality. In general: count
the number of adds touting 'new formula', 'better taste', 'stronger
than ever'. Like the original product was crap!

Yesterday I bought an inkjet. I specifically avoided and did NOT buy
a Hewlett-Packard because I don't trust them. How does that help HP?

I used to do the opposite, because once upon a time I knew that if HP
made it, it was excellent. But Carly Fiorina's HP sold me some shoddy
gear. I haven't trusted them since.

HP may have lost one customer but by lowering the prices and quality
they gained hundreds of new customers. HP still has good business gear
but you must be willing to pay a bit more.


Do you lie like that when it's in your economic interest?

I do not own HP shares neither am I somehow employed by them.
Actually, when I announced to be self-employed someone warned me my
honesty would cost me money at some point

If you're honest, why do you impute dishonesty to everyone else?

There are lots of straight shooters in the world, which is a good thing
because otherwise civilization would end abruptly.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

On Aug 14, 1:50 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Utter nonsense.  What we are seeing is companies so afraid of the Obama
policies they're sitting tight until an administration change.

"Regulatory uncertainty" is mostly a red herring.
http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/playing-regulatory-uncertainty...

We'll get a natural experiment as the court ruling on the individual
mandate plays out in markets, but I predict "no effect". That
may be because they're waiting for a SCOTUS ruling. I'd bet
"no effect" then, too.

Survey data shows weak demand as more of a factor than
regulatory uncertainty.

The SBA estimates compliance with federal regulations cost $1.75
trillion dollars in 2008.
http://www.sba.gov/content/impact-regulatory-costs-small-firms-0

Given that cost, why would firms be other than concerned about the
reams of new regulations presently being pumped out night and day?
That would be irrational. They should, for example, have a rational
expectation that Obamacare and other regs are going to significantly
add to their cost of employing someone. That, or make a rational
determination to dump employer-based healthcare, as many firms--1/3rd
IIRC--have indicated they will.

That's a bit of a strawman though--there are numerous actual effects
of the President's policies contributing to the whole mess, like
yelling at coal companies, seizing car companies, stopping oil
drilling, dispossessing bond holders, stopping states from defending
themselves, preventing companies from locating where they want to, and
on and on.

All these things incite fear, and redirect people from doing other
more important things.

Then there's the whole focus on "envy your neighbor and we'll get you
more of his." Setting neighbor against neighbor isn't as good as
encouraging each person to seek their own best fortune.

All this disrupts the civil society. A society ill-at-ease, afraid of
their government, is not as cheerful or productive.

There's very little actual difference* between Obama's
policies and Bush's ( and there was even less difference
between Bush and Clinton) . Even if say, Rick Perry beat Obama
in 2012,  why would anybody think he'd behave differently?

You mean why would he stop attacking employers and employment? Why
wouldn't he?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur