I believe in a win-win game. capitalism is a win-win game. it offers workers
money and time to buy things and enjoy life in exchange for working. 95% of the
work force in the USA work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.

I also believe that when a company goes to a foreign land, builds a plant and
then hires local workers and spends money locally, that is a win-win. it boosts
the economy of the local area.

Here in the USA, we created a housing problem by the gov't altering the natural
flow of capitalism in a drastic way. they made laws requiring that people who
cannot afford housed must buy them and the banks must loan the monies.

They also changed the laws in the stock market allowing a person to make money
on a stock falling. not just a small down tick, but allowed the same person to
make multiple gains on repetitive losses. there was an article about a guy who
did that, went to a share holders meeting, asked a question like 'you have done
nothing about the recent losses and if you do not, they will continue' the
press ran that and the stock dropped, he made a small fortune, doubled his
investment in the company and went to another stock holders meeting and did it
again.

I believe that if the USA did not do these things, that the international money
supply would be in much better shape now.

And, thank goodness for other countries being strong now, it helps to reduce the
effects of the mistakes we made and is keeping us from crashing now.

Dave

--- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, Ian Newman <ian_new@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>  
> Are you asking your questions from a global perspective or from the point of
view of the USA?
>  
> This is an international forum, so I think it is a rather blinkered and
short-sighted view to consider things from a "USA only" perspective.
>  
> A number of countries are flourishing in the current economic climate and (I
believe) will continue to do so.  If the USA wants to be part of this there
must be some attitude changes and a number of USA companies realised this a
long time ago - they operate in a global market.  They may
make descisions that do not benefit the population of the USA but benefit the
global aims of the company.
>  
> What do you consider to be more important - A weak company that only competes
on a national level, or a strong company that operates in an international,
global environment?
>  
> Ian.
>
> --- On Tue, 14/2/12, buffumjr18 <buffumjr18@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: buffumjr18 <buffumjr18@...>
> Subject: [7x10minilathe] OT: The Future
> To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, 14 February, 2012, 2:59
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Do you see the future like the doom-and-gloomers, or do you see boom times
ahead?
>
> My personal take is boom times ahead, but we'll never get back to where we
were before 2009. That's gone forever. Each successive bust will be followed by
a boom recovery that gets back about 90% of what is lost. Long term, a slow
slide down, over the decades.
>
> Things that will prevent our full recovery:
>
> Higher taxes necessitated by control-proof spiralling debt.
>
> An erosion of our base of GOOD jobs to the third world.
>
> Increasing energy costs.
>
> The CHANGE of our culture to a more Mexican-like socialist state with
patronage. A migrating people carries their culture with them.
>
> A culture increasingly hostile to success and the successful.
>
> As more and more cannot make a go of it, the burden on those that can spirals,
as the percentage of the unsuccessful grows, and the successful shrinks.
>
> But then, what do I know?
>