In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
We're already competitive.

Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you
wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out.

Tariffs are a bad thing. So what? You still haven't shown how we are less
competitive.

Why would tariffs be imposed if we'd not lost our competitive edge?

Jon can't connect the dots.


You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be
importing oil & gas.

Well, let's remove all the regulations that protect the environment, then
I'm sure we'd be able to meet our demands. Now, you're just being silly.

Not silly, but a good point, actually. You can be competitive in energy or
you can have extreme environmental restrictions. You can't have both. So
is there a compromise somewhere in the middle?

I disagree with both of you. You can be both environmentally sensitive
(ie reduce pollution) and be competitive in energy. But you have to
take some risks. I think nuclear power stations are the only feasible
solution, given current technology.

Jon seems a typical Californian. He wants the power for 21C life but
doesn't want to generate it, and *still* wants to complain about
environmental degradation.


You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting
them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc.

Most? I guess Japan isn't very competitive either, right? They import all
of their oil.

Right. Japan isn't competitive. Nor do they have much oil reserve. We do.

I regard Japan as competitive in energy because they use it more
efficiently in the production of manufactured goods, which they can
sell abroad to willing customers, and therefore pay for their energy
imports.


You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic
organisation **** away resources & money.

Except, that we're the only ones who have a non-gov'tmental group who is
doing it.

So what? It doesn't alter the facts.

BTW, I agree with Bob Cranz. The Russian heavy lift chemical rockets
are a lot cheaper and on a tonnes lifted to orbit basis a more cost
effective solution than the Space Shuttle. Sure there are failures but
as long as it's cheaper to pay for the failures than the shuttle, so
what? Gotta look at the end result.


You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology.
So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production
of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning
conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection?

I guess we're just one ****-poor country. I suggest you not use any of our
products or rely on any of our knowledge base.

What Jon doesn't seem to get is, I'll use 'best of breed' regardless of
origin. I use an Apple Mac laptop. I use Sun Microsystems servers. If
forced I use Microsoft s/ware but low end servers run Linux. Those
products are competitive in quality & price.

I have a lot of old US made machinery. It's still better than some of
the brand new Chinese made stuff. Today I bought a new power drill. I
bought an AEG Fixtec drill. These things are great, got no idea where
it's made but it isn't China.

But, that's about it. Not my problem if you can't produce stuff I want
to buy and it's got zilch to do with country of origin. Most
manufactured stuff is imported to Australia so I have no axe to grind
one way or the other. I just call it as I see it.

In fact, I suggest you not
come here. You'll be disappointed.

Sorry, Jon. I thought that AZ, NM and the bits of Colorado I got to see
were great. Nice people, wonderful scenery. Had a ball. One of these
days I'm going to Alaska.


That sounds more like sour grapes than recognizing the problems we face,
Jon. And we face plenty of them, unfortunately. Pete isn't being anti-US
(this time), he's being honest. Too bad our own government can't be as
forthright.

Actually I'm not anti-US at all. Sometimes exasperated, sometimes
admiring, sometimes anti a particular bit of policy/stupidity, but not
anti-US. I lived over there for a while and I fit in right fine in AZ.
As a NM friend of mine said, tho, I'd rather be drowned in **** than
live in LA. Probably applies to New York, Chicago etc as well. I just
don't like big cities.

Jon finds it easier to indulge in 'shoot the messenger' than address
the message. It's so much more comfortable that way. Saves thinking.

The USA is *becoming* a **** poor place. I don't like this personally
and I don't like it strategically but there's nothing I can do except
point out the unpalatable facts. You guys simply *cannot* keep up your
current rate of consumption of imports while paying for them with money
borrowed from o/s unless the lenders keep seeing value for money.
You've got the technology, the infrastructure, the skill base and the
depth of capital to do wonderful things, and you're not doing anything
except indulge in wars over pride or oil. It's frustrating and
annoying.

Meanwhile, California's electricity demand rises, and their generation
capacity doesn't.

http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/news/ca...ty_crisis.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...uentevents.htm
l

Ah well, we're gonna make a lot of money exporting LNG to whoever has
the money to pay for it, and before long we'll make a lot of money
exporting uranium too. We already make lots from exporting coal and
iron ore. Energy & resource poor, we're not. Pity we can't manage to
build efficient manufacturing but hey, as long as we can afford to pay
for our imports......

PDW