Wonder why Apple wouldn't do this project closer to home in California?
Maybe it is the same reason why every other company is moving out of the state.
They better get rolling on this project before the federal government finds some way to tax them into the ground over some rediciolus thing like energy/carbon.
Yep, the same reason... I'd suspect. I'd be perfectly happy if the entire company threatened to relocate to another state unless CA gives them tax breaks and/or other incentives to stay.
btst (by the same token), neither does not knowing whether and where to place a comma when you write.
I would suggest checking Post 103 in this forum.
I'll quote it for you...
This is a rumor site. Is it too much to ask that every punctuation, spelling or grammar error not get pointed out?
I can understand if the error actually changes the meaning of the post, but this is not the Wall Street Journal and the meaning came across clear enough.
I've been reading this and many rumor sites for years and the entire subject of the posting gets derailed by pointing out mistakes.
Please also keep in mind that many people read this from all over the world and may not have the best grasp on the English language.
They do get their point across yet are slammed by someone pointing out a typo.
Actually, the citizens of California are responsible for most of their problems.
California is a State in which referendums rule. The citizens vote on most spending and tax measures.
Over the years, they have consistently voted to lower taxes, and increase services.
What does anyone expect to happen during a downturn?
Just the other day, they voted against cutting spending and increasing taxes.
Madness!
As I've noted before... it's not madness, it's the force of competing interests. Not everyone is "out for the same thing", thus inequities and imbalances inevitably arise. California governmental spending is out of control, and so are the services that are "free" to the public. A good old fashioned collapse is what is long overdue here.
For future reference "BTW" & "OMG" doesn't show any intellect. It's just a faceless widget that chooses to speak with acronyms.
Acronyms and initialisms are a type of blending used to speed up both writing and reading. Of course, to be useful the reader has to be aware of the orthographic styling of the nomenclature. Are you really suggesting that writing out ‘by the way’ would really make the writer more intelligent and not just pedantically verbose? Should we also spell out Chief Executive Officer when referring to Jobs’ position at Apple or write Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation when referring to sharks with fricken lasers on their head? Acronyms may only be a 20th century phenomenon but they are quite prolific in language and have absolutely no barring on the intelligence of the writer. BTW, referring to people as “faceless widgets” doesn’t bode well for an argument about intelligence. LOL
Let's see: American workers have the highest productivity, work the most hours, have the greatest innovations etc etc -- all while working in US companies -- and yet those darned American CEOs of the very same companies are responsible for job losses?
You make no sense at all, I am afraid.
The financial industry is what caused the present screw-ups. Not just here, but everywhere.
Acronyms and initialisms are a type of blending used to speed up both writing and reading. Of course, to be useful the reader has to be aware of the orthographic styling of the nomenclature. Are you really suggesting that writing out ‘by the way’ would really make the writer more intelligent and not just pedantically verbose? Should we also spell out Chief Executive Officer when referring to Jobs’ position at Apple or write Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation when referring to sharks with fricken lasers on their head? Acronyms may only be a 20th century phenomenon but they are quite prolific in language and have absolutely no barring on the intelligence of the writer. BTW, referring to people as “faceless widgets” doesn’t bode well for an argument about intelligence. LOL
I've been reading this post for years and have loved your quick look ups in your thesaurus to make you sound more intelligent than you clearly are.
As I said in an earlier posting of this thread, you clearly come across as someone with nothing more than a Google Search of knowledge with your comments and feedback.
I believe my quote was "one of the most non tech aware persons in this room", but I'm sure as usual, you will look it up to point out my error of my own posting.
Yet once again, another useless post to distract from a very good conversation.
Could be some new cool symbol I am missing: what's "9"?
9 is posted in some pink floyd circles online
9 is in honor for pauline. A shy beautiful lass who was so pure, so innocent, that when she was attacked for days by trolls she never responded in kind. Her 5th and last post ever was a simple 9.
Green and Submarine was her online handle. She never knew that by posting a simple 9 she made all the trolls completely nuts. Her eyes were green and she sported red hair. She is dearly missed in hope one day I may meet her again i post a nine ..
9 is paulines gift to the world . it has the power to kill trolls dead . it can be used by everyone who still believes in magic
I am afraid there are many such links (between dams and earthquake) that have been made, including in the US. For instance, the Hoover dam is believed to have significantly altered seismic activity in the region; there was a California dam that is believed to have caused earthquakes in the 1970s, and so forth. (Happy to give you cites, if you wish; but you can also google it).
Yet, no one is suggested shutting down Hoover, or the dams in California.
There haven't been any serious problums due to dams here.
The point though is that those dams here were built way before any evidence of their causing problems was known, or understood. Now, there is no such excuse.
Quote:
True. But China is getting much better. It leads the world in clean coal technology: They are building them at the rate of one a month, and often taking down the older inefficient ones in the process. See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/wo...ia/11coal.html Similarly, China has now set aggressive targets for reducing carbon footprint, far more than the US has even contemplated.
They also lead the world in dirty coal use. That record is being broken much faster than the one for clean use.
Quote:
See my point above, about Ricardo. Just about every major economist would disagree with you: free trade makes both sides better off, regardless of the income levels of the countries that are trading ("comparative advantage"). Arguably, we got to where we are today because of free trade.
Most, if not all economists know nothing about much. They seem to be very good at explaining what happened, but they never seem to understand what is happening, r what will happen. I take their words with a grain of salt.
We can look to the actuality of what is happening. I take that much more seriously. And what is happening is not free trade. It's high;y managed trade. We've never had free trade. There is no such thing. There never was, and there never will be.
We certainly didn't get where we are today because of trade, practiced the way it is today.
Quote:
"The reality of what is" is China has a per capita income of about $3000; the US $46,000. The average Chinese person is aspiring to get to $10,000 per capita ten years from now, not where the US is today. You can't stop that process; indeed, some might argue it is even immoral to do that.
I have no problem with China attempting to raise the standard of living. I would like to see that happening. As I mentioned, we saw that with Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, and others.
I'm not happy about the way they're doing it, and I don't have to be.
I'm sure that if it impacted you, you wouldn't be singing the tune you are.
Quote:
Just as the US and the EU and the others did, China will exploit natural resources and degrade its environment in the process of becoming richer and pay a price, but hopefully, just as the US and the EU and the others did, China will also get wealthy enough to pay that price and clean it up.
The difference is that throughout most of our growth, there weren't enough people around to impact the environment the way there is today. nor was industry at a level that it used fuel the way it does today.
It's nice to say that they should do whatever they want to now, and then clean it up later, but the problem is that there may not be a later. Things have changed. and as unfair as that may be, it is what it is.
Quote:
That said, if that growth starts to impose externalities on other countries (e.g., brown clouds floating across the pacific into California), then someone will have to pay to help mitigate that: But where the cost should fall (since it is the US consumer and corporation looking for ever cheaper products that is largely the culprit) is not clear.
That's alredy happening.
As the US is expected to clean up our own mess, so should they. If they choose to compete this way, that's their choice. They should have to pay for it. After all, that's one way they get their advantage. If anything, we should demand that they meet higher standards.
(i) Either American CEOs are also -- along with workers -- to be equally credited for driving the productivity, hours worked, and innovation in American firms, or neither group deserves credit.
(ii) If, indeed, US workers are more productive (defined as output produced per unit input), then sectors in which they are more productive should see little outsourcing/offshoring. It would make no economic sense for a profit-making business to send production elsewhere, since such a move would result in making itself less competitive.
Why would a firm do that?
The mistake there is that productivity here has little to do with the fact that costs elsewhere may be much less.
Productivity has nothing to do with the COST of production when compared to living standards somewhere else. Chinese workers may have half the productivity of the US work force, but if their salary and benefits are 10% of those here, the cost of production will still be much less.
Therefore, production migrates to where the cost of production is lower.
I'm sure that if it impacted you, you wouldn't be singing the tune you are......
There is no point in quoting your whole post to say this, but perhaps the one I've cut and pasted is enough: It sure sounds like you have an axe to grind against China.
But, in all fairness, you're right, China has not (as yet) impacted my livelihood.
There is no point in quoting your whole post to say this, but perhaps the one I've cut and pasted is enough: It sure sounds like you have an axe to grind against China.
But, in all fairness, you're right, China has not (as yet) impacted my livelihood.
I have no axe to grind against Chine per se.
But we have to realize the realities of what is happening.
Is it fair that we should expect to have great unemployment so that they can catch up? I don't think so. Should they be allowed to take our IP so that they don't have to come up with their own? Again, no.
Should they be excused from having to meet environmental rules that could spell problems for the entire world? Of course not.
If you like, we can include India, though they lag China by a decade or more.
(i) Either American CEOs are also -- along with workers -- to be equally credited for driving the productivity, hours worked, and innovation in American firms, or neither group deserves credit.
(ii) If, indeed, US workers are more productive (defined as output produced per unit input), then sectors in which they are more productive should see little outsourcing/offshoring. It would make no economic sense for a profit-making business to send production elsewhere, since such a move would result in making itself less competitive.
Why would a firm do that?
On a level playing field America can compete in most cases. but if another country. like .. o well i dunno lets call this country china . lets say china builds a factory city in the south. and takes workers from the Harbin area in the north . and these workers live in a factory dorm . the Harbin workers have a 70 to 90 hour work week. they have no worker rights at all like in America . They may get meat once a day,maybe . They may want to pray that someday they will have a better life but it is so poor up north that they must work here, or their family may starve. Some studies show that upwards of 90 percent of the women who travel from poor area's to large cities have been raped . Either on the way there or in place where they work .
I could go on and on but you get the picture . This factory makes lead painted toys. Mattel out sourced it dolls to this factory. After Mattel dropped them the 700 workers were stranded .With no pay and no money to go home . At least one hundred of these women lived for a while under a major highway, sadly some got raped there too.
This is out sourcing dude .
Nice huh .
p. s. the american toy factories closed.They could not compete with slave labour and no human worker rights at all.
They are the worlds biggest polluter. Even their own government admitted that about 700,000 people died there last year because of pollution, and other organizations estimate it really could be three to four times as many.
China may be the world's biggest polluter but thats because they have the biggest population. Per head they produce 1/3 the average American's amount of pollution.
On topic, apparently energy is much cheaper in NC than in California and its very close to the internet backbone. Also its easier to protect datacentres against hurricanes than earthquakes and wildfires apparently. At least this is what they say on macrumors.
Comments
A nice memorial day weekend.
Looking at the size of this thread, I don't think many people here did.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/193/5...2196dccc00.jpg
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/20...hts-on-for-ya/
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/..._id=367&cat=10
Someone mentioned The Hypocrite?
Wonder why Apple wouldn't do this project closer to home in California?
Maybe it is the same reason why every other company is moving out of the state.
They better get rolling on this project before the federal government finds some way to tax them into the ground over some rediciolus thing like energy/carbon.
Yep, the same reason... I'd suspect. I'd be perfectly happy if the entire company threatened to relocate to another state unless CA gives them tax breaks and/or other incentives to stay.
For future reference "BTW" & "OMG" doesn't show any intellect. It's just a faceless widget that chooses to speak with acronyms.
btst (by the same token), neither does not knowing whether and where to place a comma when you write.
btst (by the same token), neither does not knowing whether and where to place a comma when you write.
I would suggest checking Post 103 in this forum.
I'll quote it for you...
This is a rumor site. Is it too much to ask that every punctuation, spelling or grammar error not get pointed out?
I can understand if the error actually changes the meaning of the post, but this is not the Wall Street Journal and the meaning came across clear enough.
I've been reading this and many rumor sites for years and the entire subject of the posting gets derailed by pointing out mistakes.
Please also keep in mind that many people read this from all over the world and may not have the best grasp on the English language.
They do get their point across yet are slammed by someone pointing out a typo.
Just my 2 cents.
Actually, the citizens of California are responsible for most of their problems.
California is a State in which referendums rule. The citizens vote on most spending and tax measures.
Over the years, they have consistently voted to lower taxes, and increase services.
What does anyone expect to happen during a downturn?
Just the other day, they voted against cutting spending and increasing taxes.
Madness!
As I've noted before... it's not madness, it's the force of competing interests. Not everyone is "out for the same thing", thus inequities and imbalances inevitably arise. California governmental spending is out of control, and so are the services that are "free" to the public. A good old fashioned collapse is what is long overdue here.
For future reference "BTW" & "OMG" doesn't show any intellect. It's just a faceless widget that chooses to speak with acronyms.
Acronyms and initialisms are a type of blending used to speed up both writing and reading. Of course, to be useful the reader has to be aware of the orthographic styling of the nomenclature. Are you really suggesting that writing out ‘by the way’ would really make the writer more intelligent and not just pedantically verbose? Should we also spell out Chief Executive Officer when referring to Jobs’ position at Apple or write Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation when referring to sharks with fricken lasers on their head? Acronyms may only be a 20th century phenomenon but they are quite prolific in language and have absolutely no barring on the intelligence of the writer. BTW, referring to people as “faceless widgets” doesn’t bode well for an argument about intelligence. LOL
Let's see: American workers have the highest productivity, work the most hours, have the greatest innovations etc etc -- all while working in US companies -- and yet those darned American CEOs of the very same companies are responsible for job losses?
You make no sense at all, I am afraid.
The financial industry is what caused the present screw-ups. Not just here, but everywhere.
On this issue, cameronj is spot on.
Over two centuries of post-Ricardo theories and empirical evidence are difficult -- actually, impossible -- to quarrel with.
He didn't really say much about that at all. empirical evidence is what I'm talking about.
Acronyms and initialisms are a type of blending used to speed up both writing and reading. Of course, to be useful the reader has to be aware of the orthographic styling of the nomenclature. Are you really suggesting that writing out ‘by the way’ would really make the writer more intelligent and not just pedantically verbose? Should we also spell out Chief Executive Officer when referring to Jobs’ position at Apple or write Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation when referring to sharks with fricken lasers on their head? Acronyms may only be a 20th century phenomenon but they are quite prolific in language and have absolutely no barring on the intelligence of the writer. BTW, referring to people as “faceless widgets” doesn’t bode well for an argument about intelligence. LOL
I've been reading this post for years and have loved your quick look ups in your thesaurus to make you sound more intelligent than you clearly are.
As I said in an earlier posting of this thread, you clearly come across as someone with nothing more than a Google Search of knowledge with your comments and feedback.
I believe my quote was "one of the most non tech aware persons in this room", but I'm sure as usual, you will look it up to point out my error of my own posting.
Yet once again, another useless post to distract from a very good conversation.
Could be some new cool symbol I am missing: what's "9"?
9 is posted in some pink floyd circles online
9 is in honor for pauline. A shy beautiful lass who was so pure, so innocent, that when she was attacked for days by trolls she never responded in kind. Her 5th and last post ever was a simple 9.
Green and Submarine was her online handle. She never knew that by posting a simple 9 she made all the trolls completely nuts. Her eyes were green and she sported red hair. She is dearly missed in hope one day I may meet her again i post a nine ..
9 is paulines gift to the world . it has the power to kill trolls dead . it can be used by everyone who still believes in magic
peace
9
9
OK - you can have nine, but I get all the other digits.
I am afraid there are many such links (between dams and earthquake) that have been made, including in the US. For instance, the Hoover dam is believed to have significantly altered seismic activity in the region; there was a California dam that is believed to have caused earthquakes in the 1970s, and so forth. (Happy to give you cites, if you wish; but you can also google it).
Yet, no one is suggested shutting down Hoover, or the dams in California.
There haven't been any serious problums due to dams here.
The point though is that those dams here were built way before any evidence of their causing problems was known, or understood. Now, there is no such excuse.
True. But China is getting much better. It leads the world in clean coal technology: They are building them at the rate of one a month, and often taking down the older inefficient ones in the process. See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/wo...ia/11coal.html Similarly, China has now set aggressive targets for reducing carbon footprint, far more than the US has even contemplated.
They also lead the world in dirty coal use. That record is being broken much faster than the one for clean use.
See my point above, about Ricardo. Just about every major economist would disagree with you: free trade makes both sides better off, regardless of the income levels of the countries that are trading ("comparative advantage"). Arguably, we got to where we are today because of free trade.
Most, if not all economists know nothing about much. They seem to be very good at explaining what happened, but they never seem to understand what is happening, r what will happen. I take their words with a grain of salt.
We can look to the actuality of what is happening. I take that much more seriously. And what is happening is not free trade. It's high;y managed trade. We've never had free trade. There is no such thing. There never was, and there never will be.
We certainly didn't get where we are today because of trade, practiced the way it is today.
"The reality of what is" is China has a per capita income of about $3000; the US $46,000. The average Chinese person is aspiring to get to $10,000 per capita ten years from now, not where the US is today. You can't stop that process; indeed, some might argue it is even immoral to do that.
I have no problem with China attempting to raise the standard of living. I would like to see that happening. As I mentioned, we saw that with Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, and others.
I'm not happy about the way they're doing it, and I don't have to be.
I'm sure that if it impacted you, you wouldn't be singing the tune you are.
Just as the US and the EU and the others did, China will exploit natural resources and degrade its environment in the process of becoming richer and pay a price, but hopefully, just as the US and the EU and the others did, China will also get wealthy enough to pay that price and clean it up.
The difference is that throughout most of our growth, there weren't enough people around to impact the environment the way there is today. nor was industry at a level that it used fuel the way it does today.
It's nice to say that they should do whatever they want to now, and then clean it up later, but the problem is that there may not be a later. Things have changed. and as unfair as that may be, it is what it is.
That said, if that growth starts to impose externalities on other countries (e.g., brown clouds floating across the pacific into California), then someone will have to pay to help mitigate that: But where the cost should fall (since it is the US consumer and corporation looking for ever cheaper products that is largely the culprit) is not clear.
That's alredy happening.
As the US is expected to clean up our own mess, so should they. If they choose to compete this way, that's their choice. They should have to pay for it. After all, that's one way they get their advantage. If anything, we should demand that they meet higher standards.
Sure.
(i) Either American CEOs are also -- along with workers -- to be equally credited for driving the productivity, hours worked, and innovation in American firms, or neither group deserves credit.
(ii) If, indeed, US workers are more productive (defined as output produced per unit input), then sectors in which they are more productive should see little outsourcing/offshoring. It would make no economic sense for a profit-making business to send production elsewhere, since such a move would result in making itself less competitive.
Why would a firm do that?
The mistake there is that productivity here has little to do with the fact that costs elsewhere may be much less.
Productivity has nothing to do with the COST of production when compared to living standards somewhere else. Chinese workers may have half the productivity of the US work force, but if their salary and benefits are 10% of those here, the cost of production will still be much less.
Therefore, production migrates to where the cost of production is lower.
Not a pretty picture but it is the state of business (at least in the US).
Everywhere.
......
I'm sure that if it impacted you, you wouldn't be singing the tune you are......
There is no point in quoting your whole post to say this, but perhaps the one I've cut and pasted is enough: It sure sounds like you have an axe to grind against China.
But, in all fairness, you're right, China has not (as yet) impacted my livelihood.
There is no point in quoting your whole post to say this, but perhaps the one I've cut and pasted is enough: It sure sounds like you have an axe to grind against China.
But, in all fairness, you're right, China has not (as yet) impacted my livelihood.
I have no axe to grind against Chine per se.
But we have to realize the realities of what is happening.
Is it fair that we should expect to have great unemployment so that they can catch up? I don't think so. Should they be allowed to take our IP so that they don't have to come up with their own? Again, no.
Should they be excused from having to meet environmental rules that could spell problems for the entire world? Of course not.
If you like, we can include India, though they lag China by a decade or more.
Sure.
(i) Either American CEOs are also -- along with workers -- to be equally credited for driving the productivity, hours worked, and innovation in American firms, or neither group deserves credit.
(ii) If, indeed, US workers are more productive (defined as output produced per unit input), then sectors in which they are more productive should see little outsourcing/offshoring. It would make no economic sense for a profit-making business to send production elsewhere, since such a move would result in making itself less competitive.
Why would a firm do that?
On a level playing field America can compete in most cases. but if another country. like .. o well i dunno lets call this country china . lets say china builds a factory city in the south. and takes workers from the Harbin area in the north . and these workers live in a factory dorm . the Harbin workers have a 70 to 90 hour work week. they have no worker rights at all like in America . They may get meat once a day,maybe . They may want to pray that someday they will have a better life but it is so poor up north that they must work here, or their family may starve. Some studies show that upwards of 90 percent of the women who travel from poor area's to large cities have been raped . Either on the way there or in place where they work .
I could go on and on but you get the picture . This factory makes lead painted toys. Mattel out sourced it dolls to this factory. After Mattel dropped them the 700 workers were stranded .With no pay and no money to go home . At least one hundred of these women lived for a while under a major highway, sadly some got raped there too.
This is out sourcing dude .
Nice huh .
p. s. the american toy factories closed.They could not compete with slave labour and no human worker rights at all.
OK - you can have nine, but I get all the other digits.
we all have 9
They are the worlds biggest polluter. Even their own government admitted that about 700,000 people died there last year because of pollution, and other organizations estimate it really could be three to four times as many.
China may be the world's biggest polluter but thats because they have the biggest population. Per head they produce 1/3 the average American's amount of pollution.
On topic, apparently energy is much cheaper in NC than in California and its very close to the internet backbone. Also its easier to protect datacentres against hurricanes than earthquakes and wildfires apparently. At least this is what they say on macrumors.