UNITED AIR LINES TO LAY OFF 950 PILOTS

[Larry Dighera]

I expect to see a lot more of this sort of thing occurring as the
economy worsens:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chicago-united-pilot-memo-june23,0,81993.story
Today we announced initial details concerning the first wave of
pilot furloughs resulting from our plans to take 100 aircraft from
our mainline fleet due to record high oil prices and a softening
U.S. economy. The first notices to furlough approximately 100
pilots for the flying month of September will be issued in
mid-July.

By the end of 2009, when we expect to complete the full reduction
of our 94 B737 aircraft and six B747s (see June 4 NewsReal), we
anticipate the need to furlough approximately 950 active pilots.
This process is one of the difficult but necessary steps we need
to take to size our business appropriately to reflect the current
market reality....

[gatt[_5_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> I expect to see a lot more of this sort of thing occurring as the
> economy worsens:

Time to burst the speculator-driven oil bubble once and for all:

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Dow plummeted more than 350 points
Thursday as selling accelerated following a record surge in oil prices.
The three major indexes took a beating right out of the gate after
Goldman Sachs downgraded two key Dow components, and two tech leaders
disappointed investors."

"Khelil joins a long list of forecasters who have made bold oil price
predictions this year. Each new forecast—such as Goldman Sachs' recent
prediction that prices could rise as high as $200—causes a jump in
prices as speculative buyers are drawn into the market."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91HU5I81&show_article=1

"WASHINGTON (Marke****ch) -- The price of retail gasoline could fall by
half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit
speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told
Congress on Monday."

So, really, the only thing that's actually driving the cost up today,
and causing stock market turbulence, is a) the jackass predictions and
b) the entities "drawn into the market" Maybe it's time to kill the
messengers after all.

Naturally, when the bubble finally bursts there will be a whole bunch of
hand-wringing and pleas for taxpayer-subsidized bailouts, ruined
retirements funds and calls for Congressional investigation. But the
economy will explode as the average American consumer feels as if a
crushing weight has just been lifted from his shoulders.

My rapidly-depreciating .02.

-c

[kontiki[_2_]]

gatt wrote:

>
> "WASHINGTON (Marke****ch) -- The price of retail gasoline could fall by
> half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit
> speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told
> Congress on Monday."
>

Oh.. thank goodness. Congress will pass another law and solve all of our
problems. Lets keep on voting for the same law passers cuz they're doing
such a great job.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jun 26, 4:15*pm, gatt > wrote:

> "WASHINGTON (Marke****ch) -- The price of retail gasoline could fall by
> half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit
> speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told
> Congress on Monday."

Its wonderful to hear the opinion of people who have no idea how
economics and market financing works. Futures are key to the financial
stability of the industry. If you can't sell futures you don't know
what price you are guaranteed and you can't finance anything. Futures
contracts are somethin you can take to the bank.

-Robert

[gatt[_5_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>>"WASHINGTON (Marke****ch) -- The price of retail gasoline could fall by
>>half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit
>>speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told
>>Congress on Monday."
>
> Its wonderful to hear the opinion of people who have no idea how
> economics and market financing works.

What's a CFII doing suggesting that four different energy analysts don't
know how economics and market financing works?

>Futures are key to the financial stability of the industry.

I guess guys like me put the United States of America ahead of the the
almighty oil industry.

> Futures contracts are somethin you can take to the bank.

Banks fail.

-c

[GMOD10X]

This is how you fix the airline industry

1. Disband and terminate the FAILED Aviation Administration.
It is a pathetic failure and needs to be reinvented and
revamped with a new name and mission

2. Using money from the WASTE called the FAA encourage new
technology. Award huge Government grants for new fuel saving
technology in aircraft.

3. Open up the airspace between 45K and 60K to new high
altitude aircraft that can fly direct routes without Air
Traffic control antiquated nonsense

4. Set aside AMERICAN oil reserves for the airline industry
with direct from refinery to airport pipelines and remove
all federal tax on aviation fuel. (Use savings from waste
saved from FAA bloated Government barnacle)

5. Terminate the IRS and all income tax. More money in
peoples pocket will spur recreation airline travel increase

6. Encourage midnight to 6AM travel with massive discounts
and airline support

7. Install airline internet network so all airline
passengers can surf the internet and conduct business while
in flight. End the antiquated STUPID cell phone ban by the
FAA on aircraft. Cell phones DO NOT interfere with
navigation signals on aircraft that is a bunch of HOGWASH

8. Stop the stupid as HELL TSA long line security INSANITY
in our airports. Issue all flight crews Tasers and 9mm
glocks including flight attendants. If a passenger acts up
in flight and is Middle Eastern KILL them. When I fly
through Europe I don't take my ****ing shoes off why here?

9. Last but not least vote out EVERY incumbent in any
politically elected office now. Our Federal and State and
Local Governments are a DISGRACE and should be **** out like
the infected feces they are. We need a political PURGE here
in America. Starting with the White House all the way down
to the BOTTOM of Government. Complete and TOTAL purge.

I am sure there are many others jump in the waters fine

[Jay Maynard]

I had to respond to this, in the middle of the usual anti-FAA rant from
someone who obviously feels wronged by them:

On 2008-06-28, GMOD10X > wrote:
> End the antiquated STUPID cell phone ban by the FAA on aircraft. Cell
> phones DO NOT interfere with navigation signals on aircraft that is a
> bunch of HOGWASH

Whether or not they do, there's another part of this that the FAA has no
control over: the cellphone network's fundamental design, reaching down to
the lowest levels of the system's architecture, assumes that a single user
phone will be seen by a small number of cell sites. A cellphone in the air
can be seen by lots of cell sites. This confuses the system. The FCC has its
own ban on cellphone use while airborne, and has been known to fine people
for it in the past.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> I expect to see a lot more of this sort of thing occurring as the
> economy worsens:
>
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chicago-united-pilot-memo-june23,0,81993.story
> Today we announced initial details concerning the first wave of
> pilot furloughs resulting from our plans to take 100 aircraft from
> our mainline fleet due to record high oil prices and a softening
> U.S. economy. The first notices to furlough approximately 100
> pilots for the flying month of September will be issued in
> mid-July.
>
> By the end of 2009, when we expect to complete the full reduction
> of our 94 B737 aircraft and six B747s (see June 4 NewsReal), we
> anticipate the need to furlough approximately 950 active pilots.
> This process is one of the difficult but necessary steps we need
> to take to size our business appropriately to reflect the current
> market reality....

Companies that try to reduce costs rather than increase revenue eventually
tend to fold, because you can only reduce costs to zero (and you'll go out of
business long before that), whereas you can increase revenue indefinitely.
Cost-cutting is easy for even the stupidest corporate officers to understand,
but it's a poor, short-term, emergency measure, not a competent way to manage
a company.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> So, really, the only thing that's actually driving the cost up today ...

The cost isn't really rising much. It's just that the dollar is falling. The
cost of oil in other currencies is far more stable, since they are not
falling.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Its wonderful to hear the opinion of people who have no idea how
> economics and market financing works. Futures are key to the financial
> stability of the industry. If you can't sell futures you don't know
> what price you are guaranteed and you can't finance anything. Futures
> contracts are somethin you can take to the bank.

Futures, like virtually all speculation based on worthless paper, are a form
of legalized gambling.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:38:29 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> I expect to see a lot more of this sort of thing occurring as the
>> economy worsens:
>>
>>
>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chicago-united-pilot-memo-june23,0,81993.story
>> Today we announced initial details concerning the first wave of
>> pilot furloughs resulting from our plans to take 100 aircraft from
>> our mainline fleet due to record high oil prices and a softening
>> U.S. economy. The first notices to furlough approximately 100
>> pilots for the flying month of September will be issued in
>> mid-July.
>>
>> By the end of 2009, when we expect to complete the full reduction
>> of our 94 B737 aircraft and six B747s (see June 4 NewsReal), we
>> anticipate the need to furlough approximately 950 active pilots.
>> This process is one of the difficult but necessary steps we need
>> to take to size our business appropriately to reflect the current
>> market reality....
>
>Companies that try to reduce costs rather than increase revenue eventually
>tend to fold, because you can only reduce costs to zero (and you'll go out of
>business long before that), whereas you can increase revenue indefinitely.
>Cost-cutting is easy for even the stupidest corporate officers to understand,
>but it's a poor, short-term, emergency measure, not a competent way to manage
>a company.


Reducing the number of flights to increase capital asset utilization
seems like a sound strategy to me.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> So, really, the only thing that's actually driving the cost up today ...
>
> The cost isn't really rising much. It's just that the dollar is falling. The
> cost of oil in other currencies is far more stable, since they are not
> falling.

Yeah, cos our fuel in the UK hasn't risen by about 20p a litre this year or
anything...

Andy

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:40:34 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> Its wonderful to hear the opinion of people who have no idea how
>> economics and market financing works. Futures are key to the financial
>> stability of the industry. If you can't sell futures you don't know
>> what price you are guaranteed and you can't finance anything. Futures
>> contracts are somethin you can take to the bank.
>
>Futures, like virtually all speculation based on worthless paper, are a form
>of legalized gambling.


Of course, there is an element of gaming in equities, bonds, and
futures, but they do have a fundamental purpose:


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june08/oilprices_06-24.html
PETER BEUTEL: Well, Stephen is absolutely correct, but I'll tell
you the genesis of all commodities. It started with a farmer going
to a banker and saying, "Look, I need money to buy seeds and to
have somebody that will water my crops." The banker says, "Fine,
how do I know what price you're going to have in September when
you actually bring this corn to harvest?" The farmer says, "Well,
I don't know."

So the farmer then went to a futures market. And the futures
markets were created.

In March, the farmer goes and says, "I need to get a price for
corn in September." The speculator was born. The speculator says,
"I will give you $3 a bushel come September for your corn." The
farmer sells it to that speculator. The speculator now takes the
risk that the price will go lower, but also takes the potential
reward that maybe it will go higher.

But the farmer is happy, because he can now go to the banker and
say, "I will sell my corn for $3 a bushel in September. Please
loan me the money." The banker gives him the money. He plants the
corn.

This simple idea has been extended to a number, a plethora of
different commodities, and it's the same concept, but without the
speculator, this poor farmer could never get his bank loan.

What has happened now that is different than, say, what had been
going on for 100 years is that now we have some traders that
really don't know what they're doing. A lot of them are union
pension funds, college foundations, people we normally think of as
good guys.

They have been buying and holding commodities, unlike most
speculators, who buy, then sell, then sell, then buy, who are
equally as comfortable selling things they don't have as they are
buying things they don't want.

These guys, the new investors, have been buying and holding. And
this has created a different signal. The market interprets it as
long-term end users. These people are really speculators, only I'd
be willing to bet many of them don't even know it.

And I'd be willing to bet that, if you went and told some of these
people, one, that they're helping to push the price higher and,
two, what incredible risks that they're taking on that they'd be
mortified that they were actually doing this.

[Mxsmanic]

Andy Hawkins writes:

> Yeah, cos our fuel in the UK hasn't risen by about 20p a litre this year or
> anything...

What is the total price per litre?

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Reducing the number of flights to increase capital asset utilization
> seems like a sound strategy to me.

How does that work?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:

> > Its wonderful to hear the opinion of people who have no idea how
> > economics and market financing works. Futures are key to the financial
> > stability of the industry. If you can't sell futures you don't know
> > what price you are guaranteed and you can't finance anything. Futures
> > contracts are somethin you can take to the bank.

> Futures, like virtually all speculation based on worthless paper, are a form
> of legalized gambling.

Add futures to the list of things MX knows nothing about.

Far from being "worthless paper", a futures contract is a binding
contract to take delivery of a real product at a specified price.

A point that a few naive "investors" have overlooked when they got
the call asking where they wanted their pork bellies delivered.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Far from being "worthless paper", a futures contract is a binding
> contract to take delivery of a real product at a specified price.

It's the price that makes it gambling.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Do you consider the deed to my house to be "worthless paper"?

The house is worth something, the deed may or may not be.

> The dollar value of my house has dropped over 10% in the last year.
> But it's still able to sell for 3 times what I paid for it.
> And, in the end, it's still REALLY worth EXACTLY what I bought...........
> ONE HOUSE. It was worth one house when I moved in, it's worth
> one house now.

That's the house, not the paper.

> Anyone who considers futures contracts to be "worthless paper" is
> an idiot. They're only considered "worthless" by people who are on
> the wrong side of the trade.

In every single trade, there is someone on the "wrong side," so 50% of those
trading must consider it worthless. Thus, it's no more than the flip of a
coin ... gambling, in other words.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Larry Dighera writes:

> > Reducing the number of flights to increase capital asset utilization
> > seems like a sound strategy to me.

> How does that work?

Pretty well, which is why it is a goal for most companies, not just
airlines.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Far from being "worthless paper", a futures contract is a binding
> > contract to take delivery of a real product at a specified price.

> It's the price that makes it gambling.

Nice, but failed attempt, to recover from your previous idiotic
statement.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Pretty well, which is why it is a goal for most companies, not just
> airlines.

Fewer flights increases utilization of assets? Examples?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:

> > Do you consider the deed to my house to be "worthless paper"?

> The house is worth something, the deed may or may not be.

> > The dollar value of my house has dropped over 10% in the last year.
> > But it's still able to sell for 3 times what I paid for it.
> > And, in the end, it's still REALLY worth EXACTLY what I bought...........
> > ONE HOUSE. It was worth one house when I moved in, it's worth
> > one house now.

> That's the house, not the paper.

The paper legally represents the ownership of the house.

> > Anyone who considers futures contracts to be "worthless paper" is
> > an idiot. They're only considered "worthless" by people who are on
> > the wrong side of the trade.

> In every single trade, there is someone on the "wrong side," so 50% of those
> trading must consider it worthless. Thus, it's no more than the flip of a
> coin ... gambling, in other words.

Wrong again.

In the end the ultimate seller may make a profit or a loss on the sale
of the future, but the future almost never becomes worthless.

In trading futures one can influence the outcome and minimize the risks
by knowing what one is doing.

In gambling, about the only way to influence the outcome is to count
cards at games like blackjack, which isn't allowed in most casinos.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Pretty well, which is why it is a goal for most companies, not just
> > airlines.

> Fewer flights increases utilization of assets? Examples?

I take back everything I ever said about you being intelligent but
a social incompetent.

You are dumb and socially incompetent.

Here's an example so simple even you should be able to understand it:

Instead of making 2 flights at 50% capacity, you make 1 at 100%.

Of course it would have probably helped if you knew what "utilization
of assets" means.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The paper legally represents the ownership of the house.

Unless someone else decides to seize it.

> In the end the ultimate seller may make a profit or a loss on the sale
> of the future, but the future almost never becomes worthless.

For every profit, there is a loss.

> In trading futures one can influence the outcome and minimize the risks
> by knowing what one is doing.

Famous last words.

> In gambling, about the only way to influence the outcome is to count
> cards at games like blackjack, which isn't allowed in most casinos.

It works better than playing financial markets.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Here's an example so simple even you should be able to understand it:
>
> Instead of making 2 flights at 50% capacity, you make 1 at 100%.

When did capacity enter the picture?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> The paper legally represents the ownership of the house.
>
> Unless someone else decides to seize it.
>
>> In the end the ultimate seller may make a profit or a loss on the sale
>> of the future, but the future almost never becomes worthless.
>
> For every profit, there is a loss.
>

In your world...



Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > The paper legally represents the ownership of the house.

> Unless someone else decides to seize it.

> > In the end the ultimate seller may make a profit or a loss on the sale
> > of the future, but the future almost never becomes worthless.

> For every profit, there is a loss.

Wrong and utterly childish.

For commodities it means the original seller may make a smaller or
larger profit than if the commodities weren't promised as futures.

There is no "loss".

> > In trading futures one can influence the outcome and minimize the risks
> > by knowing what one is doing.

> Famous last words.

And proven on a daily basis.


> > In gambling, about the only way to influence the outcome is to count
> > cards at games like blackjack, which isn't allowed in most casinos.

> It works better than playing financial markets.

Perhaps for you luck has a better ROI than skill.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Perhaps for you luck has a better ROI than skill.

I've learned not to rely on luck.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Here's an example so simple even you should be able to understand it:
> >
> > Instead of making 2 flights at 50% capacity, you make 1 at 100%.

> When did capacity enter the picture?

Like I said, it would help if you knew what "utilization of assets" means.

Maybe you could beg up a book on basic business on Amazon.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Perhaps for you luck has a better ROI than skill.
>
> I've learned not to rely on luck.
>

Obviously it's never going to compete with begging



Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>> > Pretty well, which is why it is a goal for most companies, not just
>> > airlines.
>
>> Fewer flights increases utilization of assets? Examples?
>
> I take back everything I ever said about you being intelligent but
> a social incompetent.
>
> You are dumb and socially incompetent.
>
> Here's an example so simple even you should be able to understand it:
>
> Instead of making 2 flights at 50% capacity, you make 1 at 100%.
>
> Of course it would have probably helped if you knew what "utilization
> of assets" means.
>
>

Anthony has no idea of what an asset is, as he doesn't have any. Thus, he
has no way of knowing what "utilization of assets" means.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Here's an example so simple even you should be able to understand it:
>>
>> Instead of making 2 flights at 50% capacity, you make 1 at 100%.
>
> When did capacity enter the picture?

Anthony, you get dumber with every post you make.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Perhaps for you luck has a better ROI than skill.

> I've learned not to rely on luck.

We can all see where relying on your skills got you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Like I said, it would help if you knew what "utilization of assets" means.

Does it include sales of mineral water?

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Not that I expect you to understand any of this.

Why do you write things that you don't expect me to understand?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Like I said, it would help if you knew what "utilization of assets" means.

> Does it include sales of mineral water?

If you have a mineral water well, pumps, and a bottling plant.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[terry]

On Jun 29, 6:36*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Pretty well, which is why it is a goal for most companies, not just
> > airlines.
>
> Fewer flights increases utilization of assets? *Examples?

Economics 101 fixed costs and variable costs. fuel use per pax per
mile ( the main variable cost in running an airline ) decreasses
significantly for any aircraft as no of pax increases. so its pretty
obvious that flying airliners with MT seats becomes less sensible as
fuel prices rise.

[terry]

On Jun 29, 2:38*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Larry Dighera writes:
> > I expect to see a lot more of this sort of thing occurring as the
> > economy worsens:
>
> >http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chicago-united-pilot-memo-june23...
> > * * Today we announced initial details concerning the first wave of
> > * * pilot furloughs resulting from our plans to take 100 aircraft from
> > * * our mainline fleet due to record high oil prices and a softening
> > * * U.S. economy. The first notices to furlough approximately 100
> > * * pilots for the flying month of September will be issued in
> > * * mid-July.
>
> > * * By the end of 2009, when we expect to complete the full reduction
> > * * of our 94 B737 aircraft and six B747s (see June 4 NewsReal), we
> > * * anticipate the need to furlough approximately 950 active pilots..
> > * * This process is one of the difficult but necessary steps we need
> > * * to take to size our business appropriately to reflect the current
> > * * market reality....
>
> Companies that try to reduce costs rather than increase revenue eventually
> tend to fold, because you can only reduce costs to zero (and you'll go out of
> business long before that), whereas you can increase revenue indefinitely..
> Cost-cutting is easy for even the stupidest corporate officers to understand,
> but it's a poor, short-term, emergency measure, not a competent way to manage
> a company.- Hide quoted text -
>
increase revenue indefinately hah, do you want to give us a list of
companies that have done that? and just out of interest which
companies have you managed? or perhaps you are simulating company
management?

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Economics 101 fixed costs and variable costs. fuel use per pax per
> mile ( the main variable cost in running an airline ) decreasses
> significantly for any aircraft as no of pax increases. so its pretty
> obvious that flying airliners with MT seats becomes less sensible as
> fuel prices rise.

But pax numbers were not mentioned. All else being equal, fewer flights
equals less utilization of assets. If pax numbers per flight are also
changed, that has to be specified.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> increase revenue indefinately hah, do you want to give us a list of
> companies that have done that?

Microsoft, Amazon, Google, General Electric ... virtually all large companies.
They did not become large by cutting costs.

[terry]

On Jun 29, 8:31*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Economics 101 *fixed costs and variable costs. * fuel use per pax per
> > mile ( the main *variable cost in running an airline ) *decreasses
> > significantly for any aircraft as no of pax increases. *so its pretty
> > obvious that flying airliners with MT seats becomes less sensible as
> > fuel prices rise.
>
> But pax numbers were not mentioned. *All else being equal, fewer flights
> equals less utilization of assets. *If pax numbers per flight are also
> changed, that has to be specified.

Only if we are discussing a problem in the back of a high school text
book. but this discussion is about the reality of what is happening
outside your apartment. How often do you fly on an airline.? I have
rarely been on a flight that is full, most airlines fly to a schedule
whereby the aircraft leaves regardless of how many passengers are on
the flight. there is a minimum number of pax for break even. as the
price of fuel has gone up , that number of pax has to go up in the
absense of fare increases , which are limited by what people are
prepared to pay. It logically follows that it becomes an economical
use of assets to reduce the number of flights and maximise bums on
seats, even if that means mothballing aircraft.

[terry]

On Jun 29, 8:32*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > increase revenue *indefinately hah, do you want to give us a list of
> > companies that have done that?
>
> Microsoft, Amazon, Google, General Electric ... virtually all large companies.
> They did not become large by cutting costs.

and can you demonstrate they increased revenue continuously , year
after year.?
and then read the following link re amazon slashing 1300 jobs.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-5300495.html

all business, look at expenses and revenues.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> and can you demonstrate they increased revenue continuously , year
> after year.?

I said indefinitely, not continuously.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 26, 6:15*pm, gatt > wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> > I expect to see a lot more of this sort of thing occurring as the
> > economy worsens:
>
> Time to burst the speculator-driven oil bubble once and for all:
>
> "NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Dow plummeted more than 350 points
> Thursday as selling accelerated following a record surge in oil prices.
> The three major indexes took a beating right out of the gate after
> Goldman Sachs downgraded two key Dow components, and two tech leaders
> disappointed investors."
>
> "Khelil joins a long list of forecasters who have made bold oil price
> predictions this year. Each new forecast—such as Goldman Sachs' recent
> prediction that prices could rise as high as $200—causes a jump in
> prices as speculative buyers are drawn into the market."http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91HU5I81&show_article=1
>
> "WASHINGTON (Marke****ch) -- The price of retail gasoline could fall by
> half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit
> speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told
> Congress on Monday."
>
> So, really, the only thing that's actually driving the cost up today,
> and causing stock market turbulence, is a) the jackass predictions and
> b) the entities "drawn into the market" *Maybe it's time to kill the
> messengers after all.
>
> Naturally, when the bubble finally bursts there will be a whole bunch of
> hand-wringing and pleas for taxpayer-subsidized bailouts, ruined
> retirements funds and calls for Congressional investigation. *But the
> economy will explode as the average American consumer feels as if a
> crushing weight has just been lifted from his shoulders.
>
> My rapidly-depreciating .02.
>
> -c

Historically gas prices have see-sawed wildly, from the $30+ barrel
"Carter Killer" run up in the late 70's down to the $10 oil-bust level
in the early 80's.

Recently gas ran up to $1.80 after 9/11/01 down to 89 cents early
2002. When the speculators leave prices tend to fall...JG

[[email protected]]

On Jun 28, 11:04*am, GMOD10X > wrote:
> This is how you fix the airline industry
>
> 1. Disband and terminate the FAILED Aviation Administration.
> It is a pathetic failure and needs to be reinvented and
> revamped with a new name and mission
>
> 2. Using money from the WASTE called the FAA encourage new
> technology. Award huge Government grants for new fuel saving
> technology in aircraft.
>
> 3. Open up the airspace between 45K and 60K to new high
> altitude aircraft that can fly direct routes without Air
> Traffic control antiquated nonsense
>
> 4. Set aside AMERICAN oil reserves for the airline industry
> with direct from refinery to airport pipelines and remove
> all federal tax on aviation fuel. (Use savings from waste
> saved from FAA bloated Government barnacle)
>
> 5. Terminate the IRS and all income tax. More money in
> peoples pocket will spur recreation airline travel increase
>
> 6. Encourage midnight to 6AM travel with massive discounts
> and airline support
>
> 7. Install airline internet network so all airline
> passengers can surf the internet and conduct business while
> in flight. End the antiquated STUPID cell phone ban by the
> FAA on aircraft. Cell phones DO NOT interfere with
> navigation signals on aircraft that is a bunch of HOGWASH
>
> 8. Stop the stupid as HELL TSA long line security INSANITY
> in our airports. Issue all flight crews Tasers and 9mm
> glocks including flight attendants. If a passenger acts up
> in flight and is Middle Eastern KILL them. When I fly
> through Europe I don't take my ****ing shoes off why here?
>
> 9. Last but not least vote out EVERY incumbent in any
> politically elected office now. Our Federal and State and
> Local Governments are a DISGRACE and should be **** out like
> the infected feces they are. We need a political PURGE here
> in America. Starting with the White House all the way down
> to the BOTTOM of Government. Complete and TOTAL purge.
>
> I am sure there are many others jump in the waters fine

So PATCO is at fault for $4.00 gas, thats a new one...JG

[[email protected]]

On Jun 28, 12:31*pm, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> * * * * * > wrote:
>
> > gatt writes:
>
> >> So, really, the only thing that's actually driving the cost up today ....
>
> > The cost isn't really rising much. *It's just that the dollar is falling. *The
> > cost of oil in other currencies is far more stable, since they are not
> > falling.
>
> Yeah, cos our fuel in the UK hasn't risen by about 20p a litre this year or
> anything...
>
> Andy

UK also has a mortgage/banking "issue" to work through, buy no one
goes bankrupt due to hospital bills..jG

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> What is the total price per litre?

Diesel is currently something like £1.30 a litre, petrol maybe £1.15 or
£1.20 I think.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>> What is the total price per litre?
>
> Diesel is currently something like £1.30 a litre, petrol maybe £1.15 or
> £1.20 I think.

Jeeesus!

Of couse, isda guv'min, innit mate?


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Andy Hawkins > wrote in
> :
>
>> Diesel is currently something like £1.30 a litre, petrol maybe £1.15 or
>> £1.20 I think.
>
> Jeeesus!
>
> Of couse, isda guv'min, innit mate?

Indeed. Something like 60% of the price at the pumps is pure tax of one form
or another.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Andy Hawkins > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Diesel is currently something like £1.30 a litre, petrol maybe £1.15
>>> or £1.20 I think.
>>
>> Jeeesus!
>>
>> Of couse, isda guv'min, innit mate?
>
> Indeed. Something like 60% of the price at the pumps is pure tax of
> one form or another.
>

Bastids! Of course, they are providing you with grist for another fifty
years of war movies so the money isn't a total waste.


Bertie

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The paper legally represents the ownership of the house.
>
> Unless someone else decides to seize it.
>
>> In the end the ultimate seller may make a profit or a loss on the sale
>> of the future, but the future almost never becomes worthless.
>
> For every profit, there is a loss.
>
>> In trading futures one can influence the outcome and minimize the risks
>> by knowing what one is doing.
>
> Famous last words.
>
>> In gambling, about the only way to influence the outcome is to count
>> cards at games like blackjack, which isn't allowed in most casinos.
>
> It works better than playing financial markets

Let's take a July contract on Unleaded gasoline. The contract originally
sales for let say $3.45/gal. It is then traded a few times before the
delivery date at $3.47, $3.49 and $3.51. The final settle and delivery
is at $3.55. While technically the first guy who bought the contract
lost $0.07/gal. because he didn't hold contract through to the end he
still made $0.02/gal just as everyone else in the chain did.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Perhaps for you luck has a better ROI than skill.
>
> I've learned not to rely on luck.

And that has worked out so well financially for you hasn't it?

[gatt[_5_]]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> There are two factors that are causing the rise in oil prices.
> 1) Supply/Demand
> a) More people want the oil. Production is staying
> roughly the same. Think China and India.

Weird. If supplies were short you'd think there'd be evidence of that,
as there was in the '70s when there were lines at gas pumps and signs
saying "sold out."

> 2) The US dollar is going in the ****ter.


So, since October of 2007 when light sweet was $83 a barrel, the economy
has gone in the ****ter and the third world has developed THAT fast such
that it's at $143 a barrel now. Uh-huh.

What do you suppose is causing the US dollar to go in the ****ter?
Blaming the government is a cop-out. Americans tend to assign
responsibility for all of their financial woes to the gummint.

>>Banks fail.
>
> So do governments!
> And ours is well on the way to failure.
> I dare say that it probably will in our lifetime if we can get the idiots.
> running the show, out of Washington in the near future.

Historically-minded folks will note that people have been declaring that
since well before 1861. Meanwhile, banks continue to fail and markets
collapse.

The oil bubble is going to burst. China hasn't developed THAT MUCH in
the last five years and there's no shortage of oil. The bubble will
burst, a lot of people will lose their asses, and the American people
are going to force the American government to make it happen.

Four years ago, everybody was saying "Buy a home NOW. The population is
only growing and real estate is becoming more scare. Prices CAN'T fall.
Here, have a loan you can't afford on a $300,000 1,200-square-foot
house. You can't lose..." Eight years ago, "BUY TECH STOCK.
INTERNET, MAN! Everybody's hooking up..."


-c

[gatt[_5_]]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>Futures, like virtually all speculation based on worthless paper, are a form
>>of legalized gambling.
>
>
> You're a total moron!
>
> Do you consider the deed to my house to be "worthless paper"?

Depends on what you paid for it versus what you can sell it for.


There's a 3,600 square foot home down the street from me for sale for
$750,000. "Investors" kept buying it, building on it and flipping it.
Now, nobody in their right mind would buy it for what it's "worth"
because the property is less desireable than half of the older lots in
the neighborhood, and about half of those are up for sale in the
$250,000 range.

Somebody's paying a mortgage on three quarters of a million dollars
worth of a $200,000 house. It's been on the market for over a year now.

-c

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:04:04 +0000 (UTC), gatt
> wrote in
>:

>What do you suppose is causing the US dollar to go in the ****ter?
>Blaming the government is a cop-out.

Here are a couple of guesses:

1. The Bush wars force the printing of money which dilutes the
value of the dollar.

2. Lowering Fed interest rates results in international capital
seeking alternative investment vehicles.

[gatt[_5_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>>What do you suppose is causing the US dollar to go in the ****ter?
>>Blaming the government is a cop-out.
>
> Here are a couple of guesses:
>
> 1. The Bush wars force the printing of money which dilutes the
> value of the dollar.

Wow. Time was you were an unpatriotic, anti-American traitor for
questioning the war in Iraq. Guys like Kerry, Obama...

"Any war with Iraq would be swift and not require a full US
mobilisation, says US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -D.R.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm

You guys remember when crude oil was $36.25 a barrel? That was July
2004. http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm 'Course, the war
was already on, China and India and Pakistan were already developing
and, what... supply is 400% less now? The dollar is that much weaker
now? People actually believe that?


> 2. Lowering Fed interest rates results in international capital
> seeking alternative investment vehicles.

I'd like to know how much of an impact Wal-Mart China has on the US
economy. Ready for this, War-Mart shoppers? This is from Wal Mart
themselves:
http://www.wal-martchina.com/english/index.htm (About Us)

"Wal-Mart firmly believes in local procurement. We recognize that by
purchasing quality products, we can generate more job opportunities,
support local manufacturing and boost economic development. Over 95% of
the merchandise in our stores in China is sourced locally. We have
established partnerships with nearly 20,000 suppliers in China. At
Wal-Mart, we always work with our suppliers to grow together. In August
2007, Wal-Mart once again secured the top spot of the 2007 Supplier
Satisfaction Survey conducted by Business Information of Shanghai.
Additionally, Wal-Mart directly exports about US$9 billion from China
every year. The export volume by third party suppliers is also
estimated to be over US$9 billion."

"Wal-Mart will continue to grow in China and contribute to the local
economy in the following areas:
* Increase procurement and support the export of Chinese
products to international markets
* Increase investment in China, especially in the western
provinces, in response to the governmental policy of “Developing the West”"


-c

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Four years ago, everybody was saying "Buy a home NOW. The population is
> only growing and real estate is becoming more scare. Prices CAN'T fall.
> Here, have a loan you can't afford on a $300,000 1,200-square-foot
> house. You can't lose..." Eight years ago, "BUY TECH STOCK.
> INTERNET, MAN! Everybody's hooking up..."

As I've said, playing the financial markets is nothing more than gambling.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Wow. Time was you were an unpatriotic, anti-American traitor for
> questioning the war in Iraq.

Maybe he was questioning the war in Afghanistan ... or Iran.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Depends on what you paid for it versus what you can sell it for.

The principle of the "greater fool": Finding someone who is even more stupid
who will pay even more money for something with little or no intrinsic value.

> Somebody's paying a mortgage on three quarters of a million dollars
> worth of a $200,000 house. It's been on the market for over a year now.

Apparently no greater fool exists for that owner.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Four years ago, everybody was saying "Buy a home NOW. The population
>> is only growing and real estate is becoming more scare. Prices CAN'T
>> fall.
>> Here, have a loan you can't afford on a $300,000 1,200-square-foot
>> house. You can't lose..." Eight years ago, "BUY TECH STOCK.
>> INTERNET, MAN! Everybody's hooking up..."
>
> As I've said, playing the financial markets is nothing more than
> gambling.

Wrong again, fjuktjard.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Four years ago, everybody was saying "Buy a home NOW. The population
>> is only growing and real estate is becoming more scare. Prices CAN'T
>> fall.
>> Here, have a loan you can't afford on a $300,000 1,200-square-foot
>> house. You can't lose..." Eight years ago, "BUY TECH STOCK.
>> INTERNET, MAN! Everybody's hooking up..."
>
> As I've said, playing the financial markets is nothing more than
> gambling.
>

Not that that is a worry for you, of course. I dont think you can beg
stocks.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Depends on what you paid for it versus what you can sell it for.
>
> The principle of the "greater fool": Finding someone who is even more
> stupid who will pay even more money for something with little or no
> intrinsic value.
>
>> Somebody's paying a mortgage on three quarters of a million dollars
>> worth of a $200,000 house. It's been on the market for over a year
>> now.
>
> Apparently no greater fool exists for that owner.
>

If only you had the money, eh?


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> gatt writes:

> > Depends on what you paid for it versus what you can sell it for.

> The principle of the "greater fool": Finding someone who is even more stupid
> who will pay even more money for something with little or no intrinsic value.

A house has little or no intrinsic value?

Have you the slightest clue why houses are called "real property"?

God you are an idiot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[gatt[_5_]]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

>>>2) The US dollar is going in the ****ter.

>>So, since October of 2007 when light sweet was $83 a barrel, the economy
>>has gone in the ****ter and the third world has developed THAT fast such
>>that it's at $143 a barrel now. Uh-huh.
>
> Markets have inertia.

If the market can damage the US economic foundation that substantially,
then we have a real problem. The MBAs are either with us or against us.


>>Blaming the government is a cop-out.

> I strongly disagree!

Independent voters like myself have been warning people about the
government since the "sucking sound" debate of 1992, but we were
ridiculed and called all sorts of things. One I remember is "foolish
Generation X crackpot."

But blaming the government is a cop-out. It didn't fly for the S&L
scam, it didn't fly for the Dot Com bust, or the Enron scandal, or
MCI/Worldcomm, it doesn't fly for the housing/mortgage crisis. There's
a common theme to these collapses, and only a fool thinks that, say,
Pelosi, Clinton or the Bushes are behind it.


> And the gummint is now assigning the responsibility for the
> financial woes of Americans to the "wealthy" and anyone else who
> is smart, an hard working,

Oh, I don't know. I'm reasonably smart and I've worked my ass off in
the telecom industry since college, and let me tell you that the telecom
industry is going to fail again because of the "let's merge and make
money" mentality. I had to sign an NDE that says I won't name the three
national networks that are careening straight into the iceberg. They're
throwing all of the upper management types--who helped the companies
thrive straight through the 2001 collapse--overboard who tell them that
the promises they're making customers and investors don't make sense.

I nearly lost my job for suggesting that we shut down customers who
hosted pedophelia, identity theft and jihadist websites. They provide
the sales and marketing people too much money.

> I would be rather surprised to EVER see oil below $100/barrel, again.
> But it's a dynamic world! That opinion could change tomorrow.

That's what real estate types said about the homes in our neighborhood.
Hell, you'll never see the bottom half of a $150,000 for a two-bedroom
home again.

> Wow!!
> So I guess they'll hold a few more hearings and come up with a bi-partisan
> resolution that says "Somebody should do something".

No, I think the American people ought to do something.

>>Four years ago, everybody was saying "Buy a home NOW. The population is
>>only growing and real estate is becoming more scare. Prices CAN'T fall.
>
>
> Hell, even a year ago I was hearing "There is no housing bubble".

Yep. And in 2000 I was told to buy telecom company stock at $26/share
because we were going to destroy the market. By 2001, it was delisted
from NASDAQ and liquidated at $.27. But, I'm sure the money counters
and business people knew EXACTLY what they were talking about before
they either left their employees to drown or went right down with 'em.


>>Eight years ago, "BUY TECH STOCK.
>>INTERNET, MAN! Everybody's hooking up..."
>
>
> EIGHT years ago it was already starting to unwind.

Yep. And then they blamed it on Clinton, or Bush. (IE, blaming the
government.)

> "Know the difference between what you're seeing, and what people are
> telling you you're seeing".

That's damned good advice. I'm seeing gas prices rocket to unrealistic
prices because, for example, two boats were shot at in the Persian Gulf:
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&date=20080425&id=4160093

"NEW YORK (AP) - Oil prices rose sharply Friday on news that a ship
under contract to the U.S. Defense Department fired warning shots at two
boats in the Persian Gulf. Retail gas prices as expected rose further
into record territory, nearing $3.60 a gallon."

"Meanwhile Tehran has denied there had been any confrontation between
its forces and the US, Iranian media reported."

If the market is that unstable and the speculators that capable of
manipulating a GIANT worldwide economy, it's time for Uncle Sam to
declare war on speculators, not insurgents in Baghdad.

-c

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>>Depends on what you paid for it versus what you can sell it for.
>
> The principle of the "greater fool": Finding someone who is even more stupid
> who will pay even more money for something with little or no intrinsic value.
>

>>Somebody's paying a mortgage on three quarters of a million dollars
>>worth of a $200,000 house. It's been on the market for over a year now.
>
> Apparently no greater fool exists for that owner.

Ironically it's owned by a bunch of Russian immigrants. (Actually, it's
owned by their bank.)

-c

[yedyegiss[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> you can increase revenue indefinitely.

Explain how, in the current economic climate, American airlines can
increase revenue indefinitely.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> gatt writes:
>
> > Four years ago, everybody was saying "Buy a home NOW. The population is
> > only growing and real estate is becoming more scare. Prices CAN'T fall.
> > Here, have a loan you can't afford on a $300,000 1,200-square-foot
> > house. You can't lose..." Eight years ago, "BUY TECH STOCK.
> > INTERNET, MAN! Everybody's hooking up..."
>
> As I've said, playing the financial markets is nothing more than gambling.

There ya go - yer wrong - you *are* arrogant.

You'd be right if the investor was ignorant. But most won't be -
they'll have a diverse range of investments that in most cases provide a
secure return well above bank interest rates.

Sure there's risk, but to call it gambling is absolutely fallicious.

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> If the market can damage the US economic foundation that substantially,
> then we have a real problem. The MBAs are either with us or against us.

They are neither. They are simply for themselves.

> I nearly lost my job for suggesting that we shut down customers who
> hosted pedophelia, identity theft and jihadist websites. They provide
> the sales and marketing people too much money.

It's not the job of a telecommunications common carrier to censor the Net.

> No, I think the American people ought to do something.

They can vote, but they don't do that very often, and if the truth be told,
their voting rights are quite limited, especially when it comes to a choice of
candidates. In many Presidential elections, for example, the only choice is
"keep the current President" or "change to someone else."

> If the market is that unstable and the speculators that capable of
> manipulating a GIANT worldwide economy, it's time for Uncle Sam to
> declare war on speculators, not insurgents in Baghdad.

Speculators have destabilized societies for centuries. But they are rarely
checked, as most people are greedy enough to want a piece of the pie for
themselves, and who cares what happens to the rest of society?

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> There ya go - yer wrong - you *are* arrogant.

Expressing an opinion is not arrogance, even if the opinion conflicts with
your own.

> You'd be right if the investor was ignorant. But most won't be -
> they'll have a diverse range of investments that in most cases provide a
> secure return well above bank interest rates.

Most investors are woefully ignorant, and trust others to manage their
investments. Often that trust is misplaced.

> Sure there's risk, but to call it gambling is absolutely fallicious.

Or at least it seems that way until your luck runs out.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> A house has little or no intrinsic value?

The title to the house may have very little intrinsic value in comparison to
its apparent value on paper.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Ironically it's owned by a bunch of Russian immigrants. (Actually, it's
> owned by their bank.)

Why is that ironic?

[Mxsmanic]

yedyegiss writes:

> Explain how, in the current economic climate, American airlines can
> increase revenue indefinitely.

It depends on the airline. Southwest is doing okay. United is not. They
both exist in the same climate. The difference between them is in management.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> There ya go - yer wrong - you *are* arrogant.
>
> Expressing an opinion is not arrogance, even if the opinion conflicts
> with your own.


Nobody said it was.

>
>> You'd be right if the investor was ignorant. But most won't be -
>> they'll have a diverse range of investments that in most cases
>> provide a secure return well above bank interest rates.
>
> Most investors are woefully ignorant, and trust others to manage their
> investments. Often that trust is misplaced.
>
>> Sure there's risk, but to call it gambling is absolutely fallicious.
>
> Or at least it seems that way until your luck runs out.



At last, speaking on a subject you know something about.


Being down and out.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dave Doe writes:

> > There ya go - yer wrong - you *are* arrogant.

> Expressing an opinion is not arrogance, even if the opinion conflicts with
> your own.

Irrelevant.

It is the opinions themselves that are arrogant.

> > You'd be right if the investor was ignorant. But most won't be -
> > they'll have a diverse range of investments that in most cases provide a
> > secure return well above bank interest rates.

> Most investors are woefully ignorant, and trust others to manage their
> investments. Often that trust is misplaced.

Irrelevant whether it is true or not.

Most invenstors don't do futures, i.e. the subject of this thread.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > A house has little or no intrinsic value?

> The title to the house may have very little intrinsic value in comparison to
> its apparent value on paper.

Ignorant blather.

A house, the legal ownership of which is determined by the title, is a
commodity item that has whatever value it has based on what the market
is willing to pay at any given time.

There is no such thing as "its apparent value on paper".

If I buy a bag of potatoes at $0.69/lb on Wednesday and they go on sale
for $0.49/lb on Friday, am I gambling when buying potatoes and have my
otatoes become basically worthless?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> gatt writes:

> > Ironically it's owned by a bunch of Russian immigrants. (Actually, it's
> > owned by their bank.)

> Why is that ironic?

That's obvious to me.

Maybe you need to be an American to understand.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Irrelevant.
>
> It is the opinions themselves that are arrogant.

Only people can be arrogant; opinions cannot.

> Irrelevant whether it is true or not.

Hmm.

> Most invenstors don't do futures, i.e. the subject of this thread.

Several types of investment have been alluded to in this thread.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> A house, the legal ownership of which is determined by the title, is a
> commodity item that has whatever value it has based on what the market
> is willing to pay at any given time.

That is not intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the value of something
independent of its market value. You can live in a house, and that is part of
its intrinsic value. It retains this value even if nobody wants to buy it (a
market value of zero).

> There is no such thing as "its apparent value on paper".

Its apparent value on paper is the nominal price that someone would be
expected to pay to buy it.

> If I buy a bag of potatoes at $0.69/lb on Wednesday and they go on sale
> for $0.49/lb on Friday, am I gambling when buying potatoes and have my
> otatoes become basically worthless?

You're gambling if you buy them as a financial investment. They still have
intrinsic value because you can eat them.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> That's obvious to me.

Then explain it to me.

> Maybe you need to be an American to understand.

No, that's not it.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Irrelevant.
> >
> > It is the opinions themselves that are arrogant.

> Only people can be arrogant; opinions cannot.

It is only people that can express opinions.

Arrogant people express arrogant opinions.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > A house, the legal ownership of which is determined by the title, is a
> > commodity item that has whatever value it has based on what the market
> > is willing to pay at any given time.

> That is not intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the value of something
> independent of its market value. You can live in a house, and that is part of
> its intrinsic value. It retains this value even if nobody wants to buy it (a
> market value of zero).

The cost of housing is a direct function of the current market value of
houses.

The market value of a house is never zero.

Somebody will allways buy a house if the price is at or near the current
market value.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > That's obvious to me.

> Then explain it to me.

Don't want to.

This is just too delicious a case of your total obliviousness to the real
world.

> > Maybe you need to be an American to understand.

> No, that's not it.

Yes, I think so.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Don't want to.

Can't.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Don't want to.

> Can't.

Nope, too much fun watching you twist in the wind for me to explain it
to you.

Have you ever heard the phrase "What goes aroung comes around"?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>> It is the opinions themselves that are arrogant.
>
> Only people can be arrogant; opinions cannot.
>
>> Irrelevant whether it is true or not.
>
> Hmm.
>
>> Most invenstors don't do futures, i.e. the subject of this thread.
>
> Several types of investment have been alluded to in this thread.

None of which you even begin to understand. Instead, you post bull ****
created in the vacuum which resides between your ears.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> A house, the legal ownership of which is determined by the title, is
>> a commodity item that has whatever value it has based on what the
>> market is willing to pay at any given time.
>
> That is not intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the value of
> something independent of its market value. You can live in a house,
> and that is part of its intrinsic value. It retains this value even
> if nobody wants to buy it (a market value of zero).
>
>> There is no such thing as "its apparent value on paper".
>
> Its apparent value on paper is the nominal price that someone would be
> expected to pay to buy it.
>
>> If I buy a bag of potatoes at $0.69/lb on Wednesday and they go on
>> sale for $0.49/lb on Friday, am I gambling when buying potatoes and
>> have my otatoes become basically worthless?
>
> You're gambling if you buy them as a financial investment. They still
> have intrinsic value because you can eat them.
>

Anthony, you're not even smart enough to qualify as a moron. You'd need an
IQ boost of several thousand orders of magnitude to reach the level of
moron.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Bastids! Of course, they are providing you with grist for another fifty
> years of war movies so the money isn't a total waste.

Indeed. And free health care too :)

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Bastids! Of course, they are providing you with grist for another fifty
>> years of war movies so the money isn't a total waste.
>
> Indeed. And free health care too :)

If you can wait fifty years!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>> It is the opinions themselves that are arrogant.
>
> Only people can be arrogant; opinions cannot.
>
>> Irrelevant whether it is true or not.
>
> Hmm.
>
>> Most invenstors don't do futures, i.e. the subject of this thread.
>
> Several types of investment have been alluded to in this thread.
>

You are an idiot


Bertie

[gatt[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:

>
>>I nearly lost my job for suggesting that we shut down customers who
>>hosted pedophelia, identity theft and jihadist websites. They provide
>>the sales and marketing people too much money.
>
> It's not the job of a telecommunications common carrier to censor the Net.

I've heard that plenty of times from the MBA types, and I remind them
that it's the responsibility of human beings to crush commercial
pedophelia wherever it appears.

The money-counters disagree with me because they profit from the
business. As the strippers say, it hurts their money.

You should see how quickly they change their tune when you shoot 'em an
e-mail that says "Hey, Skip, check out this URL hosted by your customer"
and they get to see a website advertising some infant choking on some
old fat S.O.B.'s...

I'm the one that has to verify that **** and report it to the FBI and
then listen to these corporate pricks justify keeping the host online
because the revenue they bring, but, you give some of these
profit-grubbing ****stains a sample of the real world and it puts things
into perspective for them.


-c

[yeedyeegiiss]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> yedyegiss writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>> you can increase revenue indefinitely.
>>
>>Explain how, in the current economic climate, American airlines can
>>increase revenue indefinitely.
>
> It depends on the airline.

You failed to explain how, and instead went into your usual paroxysm of
bloviation. In my experience, a person who postulates a solution to a
business problem, such as "you can increase revenue indefinitely," and
then turns out to be incapable of explaining how this can actually
accomplished, tends to be extremely stupid. This applies even moreso
when the person postulating such a solution is in miserable economic
straits, and seems incapable of following his own advice.

[gatt[_5_]]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't see "speculation" accounting for more
> than a 10 - 20% swing. Certainly not insignificant, but certainly not the
> REAL problem.
> Here's some evidence that speculation isn't the problem.........................
> Congress says it IS the problem,


So do a lot of hard-working Americans.


> When was the last time those clowns were right about anything?


Well, that reminds me of high school. "Well, if the teacher says it's
so it must not be, 'cause, like, teachers are, like, stupid and
stuff...huhhuh. They suck. School sucks. This,like, sucks."


> But while we may disagree as to the source of the problem, I think
> we will agree that energy is a BIG problem.
> This Country was built on fairly inexpensive energy.
> When manufacturing falls, America falls.

100% agreement! But, I don't think it's the line workers, the welders,
electricians, circuit board builders, etc that decided to send
manufacturing overseas. It was the business types.

> Well, Junior :)
> I'm a little old to be a Gen X crackpot (Think long hair,tie-dye, and Hendrix)..............
> But I "wasted" my vote on Perot.

Hey, man, I know my way around Little Wing and wasted my vote on Perot too.

> Should I be shorting telecom stocks now? :)

Telecom stocks are the absolute last thing I'll ever invest in again.
I'm under NDE about my present soon-to-be-former employer, but, the
general idea of telecom management is "we're profitable so let's buy the
competition." When the engineers say "Okay, look, you can buy the
competition but you have to be able to support their network and their
customer base," they're basically persona non grata. One month, your
$1000/month business T-1 service is working perfectly or if it goes
down, somebody can fix it for you immediately and the next, there's a
45-minute hold time for support and nobody's sure which part of the
network you're on. Customers go to elsewhere, the executives collect
huge-ass severances and move on and the company reputation is basically
ruined.

> And I gotta say, I'm rather surprised that "pedophelia, identity theft and
> jihadist websites" are that big a market.

They're not, but, "free webhosting" sites are popular and you absolutely
would not believe how successful those spam-driven dubious online
pharmaceutical operations are because hiring somebody to keep them off
your network is not a staffing priority.

>>No, I think the American people ought to do something.
>
> Well, the VOTE sure isn't working! What's your suggestion?

Stop electing people who take money from special interests. I hate to
sound like Lou Dobbs here, but it's time to flush the toilet.

[stuff read, noted and snipped for brevity]

>>If the market is that unstable and the speculators that capable of
>>manipulating a GIANT worldwide economy, it's time for Uncle Sam to
>>declare war on speculators, not insurgents in Baghdad.
>
>
> The key word is "worldwide". How much of an effect do you really think a few US traders can
> possibly have?


That's like saying the oil industry or airline industry is just "a few
companies," isn't it?

-c

[yeedyeegiiss]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> writes:
>
>>Don't want to.
>
> C

Squirm, Anthony. You're an obedient little doggie, and once again
you've turned desperate.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> If you can wait fifty years!

I think the current wait is more like 47 actually.

:p

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> If you can wait fifty years!
>
> I think the current wait is more like 47 actually.

See? He's already making a difference.


Bertie

[yeedyeegiiss]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> writes:
>
>
>>Here's an example so simple even you should be able to understand it:
>>
>>Instead of making 2 flights at 50% capacity, you make 1 at 100%.
>
>
> When did capacity enter the picture?

In a business where allocation of assets and capacity utilization are
fundamental to the success of that business, it should be assumed. In
my experience, only extraordinarly stupid people don't understand such
business fundamentals, and only extremely stupid people would even ask
a question like "when did capacity enter the picture?" when discussing
such matters.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> I've heard that plenty of times from the MBA types, and I remind them
> that it's the responsibility of human beings to crush commercial
> pedophelia wherever it appears.

That may be your emotional reaction, but from a more objective standpoint, it
doesn't stand.

> You should see how quickly they change their tune when you shoot 'em an
> e-mail that says "Hey, Skip, check out this URL hosted by your customer"
> and they get to see a website advertising some infant choking on some
> old fat S.O.B.'s...

They probably don't frequent such sites; naturally when a frequent visitor to
these sites sends a URL they are likely to be surprised. That doesn't change
the overall business and legal principles, though.

> I'm the one that has to verify that **** and report it to the FBI and
> then listen to these corporate pricks justify keeping the host online
> because the revenue they bring, but, you give some of these
> profit-grubbing ****stains a sample of the real world and it puts things
> into perspective for them.

If you don't like what you see on the sites, and it's illegal, then logically
you should go after whoever produced what you see. Closing down a Web site
won't change anything, unless the only thing important to you is to have it
out of sight and out of mind.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Telecom stocks are the absolute last thing I'll ever invest in again.
> I'm under NDE about my present soon-to-be-former employer, but, the
> general idea of telecom management is "we're profitable so let's buy the
> competition." When the engineers say "Okay, look, you can buy the
> competition but you have to be able to support their network and their
> customer base," they're basically persona non grata. One month, your
> $1000/month business T-1 service is working perfectly or if it goes
> down, somebody can fix it for you immediately and the next, there's a
> 45-minute hold time for support and nobody's sure which part of the
> network you're on. Customers go to elsewhere, the executives collect
> huge-ass severances and move on and the company reputation is basically
> ruined.

Unfortunately, that phenomenon exists throughout the business world, not just
in telecommunications.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

gatt wrote:
>
>
> Telecom stocks are the absolute last thing I'll ever invest in again.
> I'm under NDE about my present soon-to-be-former employer, but, the
> general idea of telecom management is "we're profitable so let's buy the
> competition."

You sound like you work for the same telecomm I do! <G>

How many letters does your stock symbol have?

[Benjamin Dover]

yeedyeegiiss > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Here's an example so simple even you should be able to understand it:
>>>
>>>Instead of making 2 flights at 50% capacity, you make 1 at 100%.
>>
>>
>> When did capacity enter the picture?
>
> In a business where allocation of assets and capacity utilization are
> fundamental to the success of that business, it should be assumed. In
> my experience, only extraordinarly stupid people don't understand such
> business fundamentals, and only extremely stupid people would even ask
> a question like "when did capacity enter the picture?" when discussing
> such matters.

It will be fun to see how Anthony tries to slither away from this one!

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> I've heard that plenty of times from the MBA types, and I remind them
>> that it's the responsibility of human beings to crush commercial
>> pedophelia wherever it appears.
>
> That may be your emotional reaction, but from a more objective
> standpoint, it doesn't stand.
>
>> You should see how quickly they change their tune when you shoot 'em
>> an e-mail that says "Hey, Skip, check out this URL hosted by your
>> customer" and they get to see a website advertising some infant
>> choking on some old fat S.O.B.'s...
>
> They probably don't frequent such sites; naturally when a frequent
> visitor to these sites sends a URL they are likely to be surprised.
> That doesn't change the overall business and legal principles, though.
>
>> I'm the one that has to verify that **** and report it to the FBI and
>> then listen to these corporate pricks justify keeping the host online
>> because the revenue they bring, but, you give some of these
>> profit-grubbing ****stains a sample of the real world and it puts
>> things into perspective for them.
>
> If you don't like what you see on the sites, and it's illegal, then
> logically you should go after whoever produced what you see. Closing
> down a Web site won't change anything, unless the only thing important
> to you is to have it out of sight and out of mind.

Wrong again, fjuktjard.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Telecom stocks are the absolute last thing I'll ever invest in again.
>> I'm under NDE about my present soon-to-be-former employer, but, the
>> general idea of telecom management is "we're profitable so let's buy
>> the competition." When the engineers say "Okay, look, you can buy
>> the competition but you have to be able to support their network and
>> their customer base," they're basically persona non grata. One
>> month, your $1000/month business T-1 service is working perfectly or
>> if it goes down, somebody can fix it for you immediately and the
>> next, there's a 45-minute hold time for support and nobody's sure
>> which part of the network you're on. Customers go to elsewhere, the
>> executives collect huge-ass severances and move on and the company
>> reputation is basically ruined.
>
> Unfortunately, that phenomenon exists throughout the business world,
> not just in telecommunications.
>

You're an idiot. Fjuktjard.

[gatt[_5_]]

B A R R Y wrote:

>> Telecom stocks are the absolute last thing I'll ever invest in again.
>> I'm under NDE about my present soon-to-be-former employer, but, the
>> general idea of telecom management is "we're profitable so let's buy
>> the competition."
>
>
> You sound like you work for the same telecomm I do! <G>
>
> How many letters does your stock symbol have?

The original company was delisted by NASDAQ in 2002 because it "failed
to regain complaince with the market value of publicly held shares and
minimum bid price requirements..." so, Zero at this point.

As ridiculous as what they were doing seemed in 2002, the upstart that
acquired them is making the same mistakes on a bigger scale. The
old-timers who survived the old company collapse are jumping ship
because the company that acquired them is showing the same sort of
cavalier arrogance that sunk all the CLECs and ILECs that collapsed when
they were just getting started.

-c

[yeedyeegiiss]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> gatt writes:
>
>>So, really, the only thing that's actually driving the cost up today ...
>
> The cost isn't really rising much.

A barrel of oil was €40.98 in 2006. Today, it's about €89.95 or so.
(That's US$50.00 in 2006, US$142.00 or so currently.)

Also, United is an Amerian airline, and makes its revenues in US
dollars, and pays for its fuels in US dollars. Its fuel costs, like
most airlines in the USA, have risen considerably.

> It's just that the dollar is falling.

That is only one factor. There are others as well.

Only a very stupid person given to simple-mindedness would believe that
the dollar's fall in value is the single reason for the current run-up
in oil prices.

> The
> cost of oil in other currencies is far more stable, since they are not
> falling.

The cost of oil in euros is somewhat more stable than in dollars, but
the increase has still been tremendous. Your paroxysms of bloviation
do not negate that.

[yeedyeegiiss]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>>Reducing the number of flights to increase capital asset utilization
>>seems like a sound strategy to me.
>
> How does that work?

You don't know how capital asset utilization works? It's a fundamental
factor in running a service-oriented transportation business, especially
an airline.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> See? He's already making a difference.

Ah yes, good old Gordon. Our saviour...

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> See? He's already making a difference.
>
> Ah yes, good old Gordon. Our saviour...


Too bad you haven't got Maggie back, she'd solve it, eh?


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Too bad you haven't got Maggie back, she'd solve it, eh?

Ah, the Iron Lady. We do miss her.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Too bad you haven't got Maggie back, she'd solve it, eh?
>
> Ah, the Iron Lady. We do miss her.
>

Me too, she was the best thing to happen to the UK since the V2.


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Me too, she was the best thing to happen to the UK since the V2.

Oh I dunno. What about the four day week?

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Me too, she was the best thing to happen to the UK since the V2.
>
> Oh I dunno. What about the four day week?


Well, it was probably an imprivement on the 2 days a week the kids
recovering from alchohol poisoning are working now.


bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Well, it was probably an imprivement on the 2 days a week the kids
> recovering from alchohol poisoning are working now.

Nah, they don't need to work. There's enough government hand-outs to pay for
the next 2 litre bottle of White Lightning.

Failing that, there'll be an old lady around the corner any minute.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Well, it was probably an imprivement on the 2 days a week the kids
>> recovering from alchohol poisoning are working now.
>
> Nah, they don't need to work. There's enough government hand-outs to
> pay for the next 2 litre bottle of White Lightning.


As it should be.


>
> Failing that, there'll be an old lady around the corner any minute.

OK, you lost me now.



Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> OK, you lost me now.

What better source of cash than some old dear walking home with her pension
money?

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> OK, you lost me now.
>
> What better source of cash than some old dear walking home with her
> pension money?

Ah, OK. Well, flying *is* expensive there.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> OK, you lost me now.
>
> What better source of cash than some old dear walking home with her
> pension money?
>

Best watch out for these, though.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygy7UDADXDg



Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Ah, OK. Well, flying *is* expensive there.

It sure is...

:(

Andy

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jun 28, 9:40*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > Its wonderful to hear the opinion of people who have no idea how
> > economics and market financing works. Futures are key to the financial
> > stability of the industry. If you can't sell futures you don't know
> > what price you are guaranteed and you can't finance anything. Futures
> > contracts are somethin you can take to the bank.
>
> Futures, like virtually all speculation based on worthless paper, are a form
> of legalized gambling.

Of course that it totally false. If you don't sell the future when it
comes due you'll find your yard full of oil barrels. Now your broker
may help ensure that doesn't happen but you are getting a real, legal
contract to purchase commodities. Its like signing an agreement to
purchase a house. 30 days later after the escrow closes you can't walk
away and say "oh, it was just paper". A contract is tangible.

-Robert

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Nomen Nescio > posted:

> From: gatt >
>
>> 100% agreement! But, I don't think it's the line workers, the
>> welders, electricians, circuit board builders, etc that decided to
>> send manufacturing overseas. It was the business types.
>
> Right now, there are over 200 available jobs for trained machinists.
>
If you're talking nationwide, that's not very impressive. Another way to
look at it is that, out of the 200,000 or so trained machinists that lost
their jobs to outsourcing over the last few years (more than that in our
region alone, so I'm not being all that sarcastic), not even 1% of them
are willing to take those "available jobs". It says more about the nature
of those jobs than the workers.

> One machine shop owner, who I know, had NO interest in outsourcing.
> After having to turn down a LOT of work, it started to look better.
>
Since you are in agreement with gatt that outsourcing was the decision of
"the business types", a simple "yes" would have sufficed.

>> Hey, man, I know my way around Little Wing and wasted my vote on
>> Perot too.
>
> Oh, YOU were the other one. :)
>
Nope. that was me (I know my way around Little Wing, too).

>>> Well, the VOTE sure isn't working! What's your suggestion?
>>
>> Stop electing people who take money from special interests. I hate to
>> sound like Lou Dobbs here, but it's time to flush the toilet.
>
> Nice idea. Ain't gonna happen.
>
It can happen if the public gets the will to make it happen. And, that
seems to be happening, or it wouldn't be a plank in the platform of all
the available choices this year.

> Maybe we need to define "oil speculator".
> I define is as "someone who is not purchasing oil for their own use,
> but only to profit from market fluctuations"
> You could, I suppose, say that ALL energy users who are trying to
> buy, at the best price, are "speculators". But I refer to them a
> "shoppers".
>
There is no need to lump these two together, AFAICT. Those trying to buy
at the best price for their own use are not buying in the same quantities
as the speculators, and are also buying after the market price per barrel
has been set. Speculators are clearly influencing the price of oil.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Nomen Nescio > posted:

> From: "Neil Gould" >
>
>>> Right now, there are over 200 available jobs for trained machinists.
>>>
>> If you're talking nationwide, that's not very impressive. Another
>> way to look at it is that, out of the 200,000 or so trained
>> machinists that lost their jobs to outsourcing over the last few
>> years (more than that in our region alone, so I'm not being all that
>> sarcastic), not even 1% of them are willing to take those "available
>> jobs". It says more about the nature of those jobs than the workers.
>
> I should have added "In my immediate area".
>
> I owned a machine shop (sold it and retired 10 yrs ago). Even then,
> it was nearly impossible to find skilled machinists. Especially in the
> area of precision aerospace (our specialty). It's even worse now
> since the younger generation isn't going into the machining field.
> I put together a good crew, but it took a lot of work and none of them
> were under age 35.
>
Precision aerospace is atypical of machine shops, so it is no surprise
that you had a limited selection of "skilled machinists" to choose from. I
worked my way through engineering school in the 60s as an inspector of jet
engine and rocket motor parts, and even then most of the machinists were
over 35. I'd say it's the nature of that kind of work, because in other
area shops the machinists were quite young, a good number of them right
out of high school.

> Don't get me started on the nature of the American worker. My
> opinion would not be considered very flattering.
>
I do get that sense from you. ;-)

>> Since you are in agreement with gatt that outsourcing was the
>> decision of "the business types", a simple "yes" would have sufficed.
>
> I was pointing out that there is a difference between "need" and
> "want".
>
Well, I think that people make such decisions based on their perception of
need, and often a 3rd party would interpret those decisions as instead
based on want. And, they'd often be right.

Regarding getting away from government controlled by special interests, I
said:
>> It can happen if the public gets the will to make it happen. And,
>> that seems to be happening, or it wouldn't be a plank in the
>> platform of all the available choices this year.
>
> To repeat myself. Nice idea. Ain't gonna happen.
>
It won't be an instantaneous change, but I don't think we have a lot of
options to continue on that path. So, we'll see.

>> There is no need to lump these two together, AFAICT. Those trying to
>> buy at the best price for their own use are not buying in the same
>> quantities as the speculators,
>
> Actually, the end user is buying in EXACTLY the same quantities as the
> speculators.
>
Then, I'm unclear as to what you mean either by "end user" or "the same
quantities". I've never bought a barrel of oil in my life, and likely
never will, but I do look for the best price I can get when I buy gas.

>> and are also buying after the market price per barrel
>> has been set.
>
> Nope. The end user IS setting the market price.
> The "speculators" would be standing on the street with a tin cup
> within a month if the end user just said "No, I'm not buying at that
> price".
>
Different issue. The speculators would just lose their bet, and possibly
their shirt.

But, when I buy gas, the price I have to pay is already in response to the
price of a barrel of oil, even though the fuel in the station's tank is
the same as it was the day before. Whether or not I make that purchase
doesn't matter in the short term. So, once again, I don't know who you
think "end users" are, but I think I qualify as one.

>> Speculators are clearly influencing the price of oil.
>
> Clearly, they influence the price. Both up and down. But it has NO
> effect on the AVERAGE price. That's supply and demand.
>
That's a different statement, and over a longer period (say a year or
two), I'd agree. But, what has been going on since the beginning of the
year is not driven by supply and demand, as there is no shortage of supply
and the demand has steadily dropped. Every holiday this year has seen a
lower-than average number of autos travelling on the road.

Don't get me started on the nature of the ralationship between oil
companies and the ties to government. It wouldn't be flattering.

Neil