Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: grusum who wrote (114403)	10/2/2011 11:32:10 AM
From: locogringo	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224648

any english majors out there that want to take a stab at it? I ain't no english major, nor do I have to be to tell you that gibberish is gibberish. so here's the deal. if anyone can make logical sense of your paragraph, and others here agree that it makes sense, i'll quit posting on this thread. you don't have to do anything if i win. there's no penalty for you. you can continue posting here without any objection from me. all you have to do is stay out of it. let someone else try to make sense of it. i'll take the full risk. that's how confident i am that no one can make sense of your paragraph. IMO, there is no need to quit posting. The guy is totally ignorant and posts nonsense. Don't take it personal, he does it to me constantly, and routinely to others. Most people skim or ignore his posts, so they don't see it. Most of us can skim, and get the gist of a post without reading it word for word, so we miss 99% of his gibberish. If you go back and read each word in a paragraph, he is often incoherent. I have asked routinely for him to decipher stuff into English, or told him to be more careful when he copies stuff from various sources. Then it's a real mish mash of nonsense, italics, caps, quotes, and whatever formatting exists at the source.

To: grusum who wrote (114403)	10/2/2011 11:42:45 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224648

Paul's paragraph: Forget about manufacturing jobs-it is contrary to capitalism of maximizing your, mine and other stockholders. 1. Maximizing what? Profits? 2. What does "contrary to capitalism of maximizing" mean? a. contrary means "against" or "opposite in nature" b. capitalism = is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets. c. Maximizing = Make as large or great as possible So he may be saying that manufacturing jobs are not the way to maximize profits as dictated by capitalism. But if that is what he is trying to state, it is definitely not clear and can also be falsified. The definition of capitalism does not included maximizing profits, though that certainly does make some sense, but not always. Sometimes a company will choose to put more money into R&D to maintain longterm viability and this will certainly take away from profits. And low paying jobs located in international locations are not always the best way to fill a position. There are few people here who have not experienced the sub par tech support from overseas. Though a call center employee in india may be cheaper, who here would not prefer to hear someone on the other end of the phone who they do not have communications issues with? One could argue that cheap international labor can harm the competitiveness of of some companies. Oh, and does anyone want to buy a Chinese painted toy? Now 95% lead free!!!! There are many reasons to NOT buy the cheapest labor that are well within capitalist idealogies. Lower wage, and fringes go to where the supply of low wage/fringe earners are located, profits are maximized and we make the most money even as stockholders. This one is easy enough. He is saying that low paying jobs go to where the low wage earners are located. Where this is true in some cases, it is not true in all cases. Ross Parow (sp) was correct when he stated, "there will be a great sucking sound to Mexico. However, he did not figure China, India and Africa would come into the equation. Ross Perot would have ended the quote after the word "Mexico". But what did he not figure with china, india and africa? What equation? Is he saying that they (china, india and africa) are preventing the great sucking sound to mexico? Not clear at all. Without manufacturing we will have to issue tremendous number of "green cards" to residents of other countries to get the high skill sets needed to perform the jobs. And, then they will return to their own countries. False statement, but the meaning of what he is saying is clear enough. He thinks there aren't enough smart people in the US to fill the high paying, non manufacturing jobs that will be necessary to keep our economy afloat if the manufacturing jobs go elsewhere. The last part where he says they will return to their own countries is most often false and more importantly, meaningless to the discussion. Here is my interpretation of what Paul is saying: He is clearly stating that American manufacturing jobs are moving overseas because the Americans who were doing those jobs are asking for too much compensation. (though he doesn't say it, it can be inferred that unions are behind the excessive compensation). He also seems to be saying that Americans are too stupid to do the high paying non-manufacturing jobs. Grammatically speaking: the problem with that paragraph starts at the first statement. Grammatically it is incoherent and if you fill in the blanks it is also false. The next problem is with the sentence about the sucking sound to mexico (from mexico?) with the addition of china, india and africa. Paul will have to tell you if my interpretation is correct. But either way, the paragraph is a mess and open to many interpretations.