Lil' Kim regrets nuclear test

[Lao Tzu]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061020/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_kim_nuclear

Report: N. Korean leader regrets test 12 minutes ago


SEOUL, South Korea - North Korean leader Kim Jong Il expressed regret about his country's nuclear test to a Chinese delegation and said Pyongyang would return to international nuclear talks if Washington backs off a campaign to financially isolate the country, a South Korean newspaper reported Friday.

"If the U.S. makes a concession to some degree, we will also make a concession to some degree, whether it be bilateral talks or six-party talks," Kim was quoted as telling a Chinese envoy, the mass-circulation Chosun Ilbo reported, citing a diplomatic source in China.

Kim told the Chinese delegation that "he is sorry about the nuclear test," the newspaper reported.

The delegation led by State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan met Kim on Thursday and returned to Beijing later that day — ahead of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's arrival in the Chinese capital Friday. China is viewed as a key nation in efforts to persuade the North to disarm, as it is the isolated communist nation's main trading partner.

North Korea has long insisted that the U.S. desist from a campaign to sever its ties to the international financial system. Washington accuses Pyongyang of complicity in counterfeiting and money laundering to sell weapons of mass destruction.

The North has refused since last November to return to the nuclear talks, which also include China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. Pyongyang has sought bolster its negotiating position by a series of provocative actions, test-firing a barrage of missiles in July and performing its first-ever nuclear test Oct. 9.



This is interesting. SO what do we do now? Do we jump for joy that a dictator has agreed to stop violating international law or what? That seems weak. I say make the sanctions harsher, and make them hit the leadership instead of the people. Then after a few years dangle a 6 party talk in front of him, and see what he does.

I bet I get 0 replies to this.

 

[Lao Tzu]

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/10/20/apworld/20061020125105&sec=apworld

Chinese banks stop financial transfers to North Korea

BEIJING (AP): Chinese banks have stopped financial transfers to North Korea under government orders as part of sanctions imposed for Pyongyang's nuclear test, bank employees said Friday, in a possibly serious blow to the country's frail economy.

China is North Korea's main trading partner and aid donor, and the disruption of financial transfers is a forceful expression of Beijing's anger at the Oct. 9 nuclear test by its isolated ally. It is a break with China's earlier reluctance to use economic pressure against the North for fear its ally's government might collapse.

All four major Chinese state-owned banks and British-owned HSBC Corp. have stopped financial transfers to the North, according to bank employees in Beijing and the northeastern Chinese city of Shenyang.

"We received a circular recently that banned services from China to North Korea because of the sanctions imposed as a result of the nuclear test,'' said an employee of the international business department of the Agricultural Bank of China Ltd., in Shenyang. She would give only her surname, Song.

Employees of the Bank of China Ltd., the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd., China Construction Bank Ltd. and HSBC said they received similar orders and stopped transfers.

"The ban started this week,'' said a Bank of China employee in Dandong, a Chinese city on the North Korean border. She would give only her surname, Zhang. "We have to wait for notice from higher levels about when to resume these operations.''

The bank employees said the orders didn't say how long the suspension would remain in effect.

Spokespeople for the banks' headquarters in Beijing and for China's central bank said they couldn't confirm such an order was issued and had no information on the scale of Chinese transfers to the North.

China also has stepped up inspections of cargo being trucked across the border into North Korea since the U.N. Security Council approved sanctions on the country last Saturday.

China is believed to be North Korea's main link to the world financial system. China's importance increased after Washington imposed sanctions on a Macau bank that served North Korean companies, making other financial institutions uneasy about dealing with Pyongyang.

Washington has long pressured Beijing to use its leverage as the North's main economic partner to compel Pyongyang to return to six-nation talks aimed at ending its nuclear ambitions.

But Beijing has been reluctant to use economic pressure for fear the regime of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il might collapse, setting off a flood of refugees into China's northeast and upsetting Northeast Asia's complex military balance.

But China's anger has grown as Kim's government defied appeals not to conduct its nuclear test and an earlier plea in July not to test-fire ballistic missiles.




Bitch shoulda known we was steady mobbin.

 

[Rabid_Goose]

Well, I'm glad China is stepping into this, I was afraid they would use a Boys would be Boys type of attitude, you know?

Also, I bet some murderer's and rapist might regret the crime 12 minutes afterwards, but too late. I think Kim still needs to be punished but not to harsh as to scare China away from being on our side and going back to backing Kim up.

What does that country sell anyways to have ANY KIND of money flow into the economy? They just counterfit all year long or what?

 

[mwm5]

guarantee china is in its plotting state of how its gonna attack us

 

[mrplunkey]

I sure hope we told China if they don't play ball with us over NK, we'll help Tawain with their *own* nuclear program

 

[bloodinbloodout]

The only thing he was sorry about was his pathetic nuclear program that amounted to nothing but Duds.

 

[Delinquent]

guarantee china is in its plotting state of how its gonna attack us

That's what I'm afraid of. China saying "hey, now's not the time young padawan"

 

[mrplunkey]

That's what I'm afraid of. China saying "hey, now's not the time young padawan"

Didn't Notra Damus (or whatever his name is) predict a fight originating in the "East" about now?

 

[jackangel]

lol at lil kim

you had me going, moose head. nothing would be better than her sharing an opinion on global politics.

 

[Dial_tone]

I think he regrets that the test was a fizzle fo shizzle.

 

[mrplunkey]

Just saw more news reports confirming the apology.

Why isn't everyone clammering about the *huge* diplomacy victory the Bush administration just experienced?

This is a situation where having a president with a good set of balls (and ones balanced on Monica Lewinsky's chin don't count) can really help a nation.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Why isn't everyone clammering about the *huge* diplomacy victory the Bush administration just experienced?

It is a huge diplomatic victory for Bush, but it is fundamentally up to China to determine how this ends up. If Bush managed to be the one behind pressuring China to actually do something meaningful, then kudos to him.

 

[Testosterone boy]

We could sure move products between S Korea and China better when N Korea changes. Not to mention the oil fields on N Koreas north shores.

 

[Gambino]

We could sure move products between S Korea and China better when N Korea changes. Not to mention the oil fields on N Koreas north shores.

in every situation you side with the USA enemies
maybe you would be better served as a resident of iran/n.korea?

 

[Testosterone boy]

in every situation you side with the USA enemies
maybe you would be better served as a resident of iran/n.korea?

You are insane orb.

 

[Gambino]

You are insane orb.

that may be
but did you not allude to some sort of usa conspiracy regarding usa?
furthermore, didn't you blame a car accident on a vast government conspiracy to bring you down?
lol

 

[mrplunkey]

We could sure move products between S Korea and China better when N Korea changes. Not to mention the oil fields on N Koreas north shores.

Hmmm.... would you call it... a conspiracy?

Who would have thought it! T-boy just seems to have a knack for uncovering conspiracies. I think that special skill is called "Delusional Paranoia".

 

[Testosterone boy]

Hmmm.... would you call it... a conspiracy?

Who would have thought it! T-boy just seems to have a knack for uncovering conspiracies. I think that special skill is called "Delusional Paranoia".

Thats a pretty fancy word for realizing that an administration will do anything to make the super rich super richer.

You probably deny it but many of your posts have stated that your income is likely in the top 1/2 of 1%. So I would expect you to love this administration.

After all, it is certainly reasonable to look after ones own interests.

Am I incorrect in the assessment that being able to freely move products between China and S Korea would be a huge boon to your Asian trading interests?

Am I incorrect in the assessment that N Korea is considered to have large reserves of oil off of the north shores?

Am I incorrect in the assessment that this administration has exhibited a pattern of hostility towards many countries with large reserves of oil?

 

[mrplunkey]

Thats a pretty fancy word for realizing that an administration will do anything to make the super rich super richer.

You probably deny it but many of your posts have stated that your income is likely in the top 1/2 of 1%. So I would expect you to love this administration.

After all, it is certainly reasonable to look after ones own interests.

Am I incorrect in the assessment that being able to freely move products between China and S Korea would be a huge boon to your Asian trading interests?

Am I incorrect in the assessment that N Korea is considered to have large reserves of oil off of the north shores?

Am I incorrect in the assessment that this administration has exhibited a pattern of hostility towards many countries with large reserves of oil?

I am in the top 1/2 of 1% -- and I *like* this administration. For me to love it, they need to get back to their small-goverment roots. These guys have migrated toward big-goverment republicans, which is bad.

Moving products between South Korea and China would be a boon for South Korea and China. And no, I have *zero* interest in that happening. If anything, I don't like the idea of those guys getting any cozier for both financial and political purposes.

And I sure hope NK doesn't have oil, and if it does I hope Kim sets the damn fields on fire. I'm in ethanol, which competes directly with gasoline. I sure hope oil shoots back up to $70/barrel.

So now, it is encumbent upon you to take those facts and spin them into some conspiracy where Dick Cheney and I are personally goating lil' Kim into doing another nuclear test.

MUAHAHAHAHA (rubs hands together maniacially).

 

[Lao Tzu]

yeah right, you earn 500k a year.

 

[mrplunkey]

yeah right, you earn 500k a year.

Yup.

 

[JarHed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQXRPHFp6gk&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO28NQc9tW4&mode=related&search=

 

[Testosterone boy]

I am in the top 1/2 of 1% -- and I *like* this administration. For me to love it, they need to get back to their small-goverment roots. These guys have migrated toward big-goverment republicans, which is bad.

Moving products between South Korea and China would be a boon for South Korea and China. And no, I have *zero* interest in that happening. If anything, I don't like the idea of those guys getting any cozier for both financial and political purposes.

And I sure hope NK doesn't have oil, and if it does I hope Kim sets the damn fields on fire. I'm in ethanol, which competes directly with gasoline. I sure hope oil shoots back up to $70/barrel.

So now, it is encumbent upon you to take those facts and spin them into some conspiracy where Dick Cheney and I are personally goating lil' Kim into doing another nuclear test.

MUAHAHAHAHA (rubs hands together maniacially).

My obsession lies with the obsessent pounding of the war drums that this administration partakes in.

Your obsession would seem to lie in following my posts and speaking of Dick Cheney.

I would like to think I would find better things to do if I had your income. I hang on the internet largely because it is very affordable and I can see what real people are thinking.

I regret to inform you that N Korea is assessed as possessing quite considerable oil fields off of its north shores. Good news for SirPlunkey however. Attaching oil fields has no recent history of lowering the price of oil.

 

[Testosterone boy]

yeah right, you earn 500k a year.

I have reason to believe he may have paid more than that in taxes for a year.

No doubt he has resouces at his disposal. Yet he follows my posts around in his spare time.

 

[Lao Tzu]

LOL! I think that is great. If you paid 500k in taxes, that means you are paying roughly 30k a year in medicare taxes. About 90k a year for school taxes. And you barely use them. I thought you were a worker at a biomass factory, not the owner.

HAHAHAHHAHA. No wonder you oppose universal healthcare.

 

[mrplunkey]

LOL! I think that is great. If you paid 500k in taxes, that means you are paying roughly 30k a year in medicare taxes. About 90k a year for school taxes. And you barely use them. I thought you were a worker at a biomass factory, not the owner.

HAHAHAHHAHA. No wonder you oppose universal healthcare.

I used to have fairly large tax bills when I ran a medical supply company. Once I spun-out an IT company we continued to pay fairly hefty tax bills. In 2002, I sold my company to General Electric and paid an *enormous* tax bill. So after paying sales and use tax, payroll tax, property tax, franchise tax, income tax, etc. etc... what did I get to pay? Yup, capital gains tax.

So after that, I said fuck-it and put virtually 100% of the proceeds in tax-free municipal bonds. I had enough of the tax game. I have a ladder setup full of bonds like this:

Puerto Rico Comwlth 745145VY5 Pub Impt Bds & Ref Bds, Non-Callable

So now, my effective tax rate runs around 3.7%, because a small number of my bonds are subject to state taxes. Basically, I got tired of having a major portion of my income stolen and wasted on government bullshit.

But alas, I did get hit with another tax bill in 2006 due to the sale of Inobis (I held a 29.5% stake in the company) to MedAssets. But I did stick to my playbook -- take the tax hit, then pour 100% of the proceeds into .... you guessed it... tax-free municipal bonds.

And yes, there is a lesson to be learned here. When goverments decide to tax the shit out of people, some people push back by legally and ethically checking-out of the tax-and-spend system. The sad thing is, that money could be providing capital to high growth businesses in on the NASDAQ. That money could be sitting in a savings and loan being loaned-out to someone to pay for a house. That money could be placed privately by me to fund some high-potential startup business. But instead, it sits in a tax-free municipal bond generating a modest, but ultra-safe cash stream.

And lets not even *consider* how much money is now sent out of the country. If I get a windfall from ethanol like I did from healthcare software, I'd certainly pay the full tax hit -- but then 100% of that money would get parked overseas. The tax-and-waste bullshit just gets old and I'm done playing along.

So what would it take to get trillions of dollars redeployed into the US? Well, why not completely eliminate the taxation of dividends? It amounts to double-taxation on investors. Also, why not provide the private-sector equivalent to a tax-free bond or a tax-free (or tax reduced) stock? And what the hell with capital gains? A capital gain occurs when an asset that has been paying taxes is legitimately sold to someone else. Why tax that at all? If an existing company is paying all of its federal, state and local taxes and continues doing so after it's sold, why tax the specific sale at all?

Anyway... this post has gotten entirely too long, but I just have to snicker when someone tries to argue against the effect that tax cuts have on the economy. As is, our screwed-up system drives trillions of dollars oversees or into other tax-free havens. It's good for municipalities, but really shitty for people who are just trying to work hard and make a living. The irony is though, it's the same liberal politician who's out there saying "I feel your pain" that's fucking the people he or she claims to be helping.

Sorry for the dissertation... I got carried away.

 

[mrplunkey]

I have reason to believe he may have paid more than that in taxes for a year.

I've definately paid more than that in at least two tax years. I sure don't pay that now, thanks to tax-free municipal bonds.

No doubt he has resouces at his disposal. Yet he follows my posts around in his spare time.

EF is major entertainment to me. I spend a lot of my time during the day on conference calls, doing engineering reviews, and pulling together presentations. It's kinda boring, but I can always find entertainment with the click of a mouse

Now TB, you can buy that explaination... but isn't it also possible that the government planted me here to spy on you? What if this is just one of the numerous countermeasures we... ummm... I mean... "they" are using against you?

P.S. Turn your coffee pot off earlier in the morning. It fogs-up your kitchen window and obscures our telescopic view of your living room.

 

[mrplunkey]

LOL! I think that is great. If you paid 500k in taxes, that means you are paying roughly 30k a year in medicare taxes. About 90k a year for school taxes. And you barely use them. I thought you were a worker at a biomass factory, not the owner.

HAHAHAHHAHA. No wonder you oppose universal healthcare.

Universal healthcare wouldn't cost me much at all. I have two employees right now, and everyone else is contract labor.

That's the real irony of me being against government mandated and administered healthcare -- or any other massive goverment screwup program. I wouldn't be the one having to pay the bills.

 

[solidspine]

guarantee china is in its plotting state of how its gonna attack us

Have you ever been to China?


I don’t think they are stupid, and I don’t think they are planning to attack us,


Buy us, perhaps,


That little gook from North Korea needs to do some sit-ups, lose that pot belly, and get a fricken hair cut, or shave his head,

It is one thing to be crazy and another to simply look crazy, he’s both.

 

[Testosterone boy]

I've definately paid more than that in at least two tax years. I sure don't pay that now, thanks to tax-free municipal bonds.


EF is major entertainment to me. I spend a lot of my time during the day on conference calls, doing engineering reviews, and pulling together presentations. It's kinda boring, but I can always find entertainment with the click of a mouse

Now TB, you can buy that explaination... but isn't it also possible that the government planted me here to spy on you? What if this is just one of the numerous countermeasures we... ummm... I mean... "they" are using against you?

P.S. Turn your coffee pot off earlier in the morning. It fogs-up your kitchen window and obscures our telescopic view of your living room.

The humor is interesting and very effective at convincing most people to see things the way that you want them to see things.

Unfortunately, and you may know this, I have had several in your face confrontations with this essential message: There has been spying/following you since 19XX. Since you turned down possibly the worst offer ever made, then publicly criticized our administrative leadership, you made a shit list that noyone wants to be on. So now you are a toy to poke sharp sticks at. Your hopes of a normal life in this country is lower than the yield on my muni's. While you previously enjoyed a perfect psych evaluation, it is more fun for us to now call you all kinds of derisive psycho babble garbage. In addition to our unlimited funds, we are also highly advanced in Freudian psychoanalytic structure and critique. Time to insert earlier quote from you "MUAHAHAHAHA (rubs hands together maniacially)".

Some of my evidence is on tape. At least 1000 pages of it are in writing. There is so much that it only took a week end to yield that. The deletions have....unfortunately been incomplete.



So I ask you..........What are you folks going to do with your time when I seize an opportunity to get the hell out of Dodge?

 

[Testosterone boy]

I'll give your group credit for this. Your personalities have more flexibility than professional actors. One day you are singing the praises of gutting America, the next day you are raising the flag and singing the anthem whilst condemning the gutting of America. It seems you can all wear at least a dozen hats. There is no shortage of talent.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Anyway... this post has gotten entirely too long, but I just have to snicker when someone tries to argue against the effect that tax cuts have on the economy.

Damn nobel laureates in economics

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/02/12_akerlof.shtml

On another note, kudos to you for being so successful materially. I had no idea of any of that about you.

 

[mrplunkey]

Damn nobel laureates in economics

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/02/12_akerlof.shtml

On another note, kudos to you for being so successful materially. I had no idea of any of that about you.

What am I thinking! You're right. Tax cuts don't help working people. Let's go ahead and crank those personal and corporate rates right back up. What do you like? Maybe a 35% minimum, then index it up to 65% for those scumbag rich guys? That would sure show them. I bet they'd just swallow that increase and pony-up those dollars. And the corporations too -- I bet they'd just say "hey shareholders, we got hit with a tax increase that decreased our EPS 60% but it's ok because we want to pay our fair share." Of course, when those stocks bottom-out it won't be the CEO's paying -- it will be the suckers who invest in the stock market.

Now let's go back to reality. Where do tax dollars come from? From working people and from successful corporations. When people get taxed more, they don't have the money to spend -- the government wastes it instead. For corporations, it's even worse. No company is going to tolerate an EPS loss without a fight. And that means more offshoring, more "tax technology" (that's what they called it at GE), more price increases, and more headcount reduction.

Why do people have this naive notion that the goverment can actually "give" anything? Goverments can destroy wealth (useless programs) and they can try to transfer wealth, but at the end of the day it's the working guy who gets stuck with the tab. It's unfortunate, and I'm not saying it's right -- but it is the economic reality we live in.

 

[mrplunkey]

The humor is interesting and very effective at convincing most people to see things the way that you want them to see things.

Unfortunately, and you may know this, I have had several in your face confrontations with this essential message: There has been spying/following you since 19XX. Since you turned down possibly the worst offer ever made, then publicly criticized our administrative leadership, you made a shit list that noyone wants to be on. So now you are a toy to poke sharp sticks at. Your hopes of a normal life in this country is lower than the yield on my muni's. While you previously enjoyed a perfect psych evaluation, it is more fun for us to now call you all kinds of derisive psycho babble garbage. In addition to our unlimited funds, we are also highly advanced in Freudian psychoanalytic structure and critique. Time to insert earlier quote from you "MUAHAHAHAHA (rubs hands together maniacially)".

Some of my evidence is on tape. At least 1000 pages of it are in writing. There is so much that it only took a week end to yield that. The deletions have....unfortunately been incomplete.



So I ask you..........What are you folks going to do with your time when I seize an opportunity to get the hell out of Dodge?

Ok... let me hit you with a newsflash:

Neither the government nor private corporations give a diddly damn about what you say, who you talk to, or what you think about them -- and the same applies to me. We're not "players" in the politics of the globe. I'm not trying to be mean here, but consider this: Is it possible that you've become completely absorbed in your own delusional self-importance that it's made you paranoid?

Now if your are Vladimir Putin posting here under an anonymous name, then yeah... the goverment is probably trying to watch you. If you're six months away from developing a home made nuclear bomb and have supply agreements in place with Zaire then yeah... the government is probably trying to watch you. If you are planning a legitimate hack attack of US spy sattelites in the next three months then yeah... the government is probably trying to watch you.

Now short of something on the scale described above, dude... you aren't even a player in the geopolitical arena. But don't feel bad... I'm not either. And neither is anybody else who posts regularly on this board.

So here's my advice. Each morning, get in front of the mirror and say to yourself: "The government doesn't give a fuck what I do as long as I am not engaged in a heinously illegal activity on a global scale. I am important to my friends and family, but on a geopolitical scale I do not impact the world, hence 'they' have absolutely no reason to care about what I do or say."

Try saying that 10 times each morning and see if it sticks.

 

[Lao Tzu]

What am I thinking! You're right. Tax cuts don't help working people. Let's go ahead and crank those personal and corporate rates right back up. What do you like? Maybe a 35% minimum, then index it up to 65% for those scumbag rich guys? That would sure show them. I bet they'd just swallow that increase and pony-up those dollars. And the corporations too -- I bet they'd just say "hey shareholders, we got hit with a tax increase that decreased our EPS 60% but it's ok because we want to pay our fair share." Of course, when those stocks bottom-out it won't be the CEO's paying -- it will be the suckers who invest in the stock market.

Now let's go back to reality. Where do tax dollars come from? From working people and from successful corporations. When people get taxed more, they don't have the money to spend -- the government wastes it instead. For corporations, it's even worse. No company is going to tolerate an EPS loss without a fight. And that means more offshoring, more "tax technology" (that's what they called it at GE), more price increases, and more headcount reduction.

Why do people have this naive notion that the goverment can actually "give" anything? Goverments can destroy wealth (useless programs) and they can try to transfer wealth, but at the end of the day it's the working guy who gets stuck with the tab. It's unfortunate, and I'm not saying it's right -- but it is the economic reality we live in.

I don't know what you're talking about. I merely posted an article showing 10 nobel laureates and 450 economists felt the tax cuts you are in favor of hurt the economy. I don't know why you are talking about all of this stuff.

Government creates wealth, because they build infrastructure that allows wealth to be created more efficiently. If gov. had taken a stronger leadership role in promoting broadband access for example the economy would be 500 billion a year larger.

http://www.muniwireless.com/community/1023

Our economy would be shit w/o roads, education, basic healthcare and gov. leadership in various roles. Hence taxes.

 

[mrplunkey]

I don't know what you're talking about. I merely posted an article showing 10 nobel laureates and 450 economists felt the tax cuts you are in favor of hurt the economy. I don't know why you are talking about all of this stuff.

Government creates wealth, because they build infrastructure that allows wealth to be created more efficiently. If gov. had taken a stronger leadership role in promoting broadband access for example the economy would be 500 billion a year larger.

http://www.muniwireless.com/community/1023

Our economy would be shit w/o roads, education, basic healthcare and gov. leadership in various roles. Hence taxes.

We're living in the middle of a successful tax cut result (i.e. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm363.cfm) and you'd rather focus on a theoretical debate a bunch of economists had three years ago? The Bush tax cuts have worked -- we have more jobs, a 4-year low in the deficit, and a record stock market.

And as far as your Internet example. I still remember when the US government Internet service first became available in my neighborhood. It was awesome. It was 6 mb/sec and they upgraded it to 8 mb/sec within around three months. Oh wait... there is no US government Internet service -- I was using Comcast Cable. And now I use BellSouth DSL. Those seem like private companies to me.

Now you would be correct to say the government supposidly takes a "leadership" role in infrastructure like the Internet -- but the reality is they just screw it up. But they screw everything up. Where do you start? Cellphone standards... TV broadcasting standards... Social Security... the US Postal Service... It seems crazy to me that the more ridiculously they screw up, the more people clammer to hand them more of our lives.

The answer isn't to nationalize everything -- that seems to be a theme with you (i.e. your "Nationalize Healthcare" agenda).

 

[Lao Tzu]

Now you would be correct to say the government supposidly takes a "leadership" role in infrastructure like the Internet -- but the reality is they just screw it up. But they screw everything up. Where do you start? Cellphone standards... TV broadcasting standards... Social Security... the US Postal Service... It seems crazy to me that the more ridiculously they screw up, the more people clammer to hand them more of our lives.

The answer isn't to nationalize everything -- that seems to be a theme with you (i.e. your "Nationalize Healthcare" agenda).

No, it is not a theme with me. THere are certain tasks the market is unable to do, so government takes a leadership role and manipulates the market with things like incentives, mandates and tax breaks. You are the one who wants to denationalize everything, I am more open minded and take each issue on its merits rather than reject it or accept it wholeheartidly.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Governmentsuccesses.htm

And I'd hardly call SS a failure. The poverty rate for the elderly is extremely low now, compared to the 30-40% it used to be.

 

[Lao Tzu]

PS I love how every single thread that both of us posts on eventually turns into this same debate.

 

[SoKlueles]

im glad they are regretting it
and yay for bush for stepping in nicely

 

[mrplunkey]

PS I love how every single thread that both of us posts on eventually turns into this same debate.

I guess as long as I don't have to pay for it I shouldn't really give a damn how big of a mess nationalization of everything makes, now should I?

 

[Lao Tzu]

I guess as long as I don't have to pay for it I shouldn't really give a damn how big of a mess nationalization of everything makes, now should I?

I have never seen you prove government intervention guarantees destruction.

 

[mrplunkey]

I have never seen you prove government intervention guarantees destruction.

First of all, in the real world the burden of proof for competence is the person who wants the job. If that weren't the case, then I'm going to command the next space shuttle mission because NASA can't prove I'm not an astronaut.

Second, how many examples do you need?

US Postal Service versus Fex Ex or UPS
Veteran's Administration Hospitals versus almost any private pay hospital
Cobol versus C/C++/Java
Social Security versus private IRA/mutual funds

Evidence is everywhere... government regulated TV standards and we've had two innovations since its inception -- incorporation of color standards many years ago and the upcoming HD shift.

Now let's contrast the desktop computer industry. Microsoft/Intel simply ran away with it. I still remember my TRS-80 back in 1978, and it was totally inconcievable how quickly and effectively private industry advanced that technology. So you want a supercomputer? Fine... just wait 2-3 years and today's supercomputer can be ordered direct from Dell for about 2k.

The only thing I can think of the government does well is military technology, but that's been 100% outsourced to the private sector -- and for top dollar as well.

 

[mrplunkey]

I have never seen you prove government intervention guarantees destruction.

Wait... I may be on the verge of doing a 180 on my attitude toward government because I've found proof positive that government can help and make peoples' lives better. Please consult this thread:

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?t=513706

I will now sleep much more safely and secure knowing that your and my tax dollars are protecting the American public from excessive folate levels found in Vegemite.

It's got to make you well-up and want to cry knowing a major portion of your hard-earned income is going toward protecting US citizens from this clear and immanent danger.

 

[Lao Tzu]

First of all, in the real world the burden of proof for competence is the person who wants the job. If that weren't the case, then I'm going to command the next space shuttle mission because NASA can't prove I'm not an astronaut.

Second, how many examples do you need?

US Postal Service versus Fex Ex or UPS
Veteran's Administration Hospitals versus almost any private pay hospital
Cobol versus C/C++/Java
Social Security versus private IRA/mutual funds

Evidence is everywhere... government regulated TV standards and we've had two innovations since its inception -- incorporation of color standards many years ago and the upcoming HD shift.

Now let's contrast the desktop computer industry. Microsoft/Intel simply ran away with it. I still remember my TRS-80 back in 1978, and it was totally inconcievable how quickly and effectively private industry advanced that technology. So you want a supercomputer? Fine... just wait 2-3 years and today's supercomputer can be ordered direct from Dell for about 2k.

The only thing I can think of the government does well is military technology, but that's been 100% outsourced to the private sector -- and for top dollar as well.

The burden of proof is on the person who makes blanket statements. If you are going to say 'government is always going to fail' you need to back it up.

Veteran's Administration Hospitals versus almost any private pay hospital

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...ital+quality+private&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

VA hospitals outscore private ones in surveys


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376238-1,00.html

How VA Hospitals Became The Best
No longer a nation's shame, veteran care is acing competitors

Social Security versus private IRA/mutual funds

http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-05socsec2.htm

Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan........in general, benefits are lower for those with lower earnings and/or with a greater number of dependents who qualify for Social Security.”[3]........Retirement Benefits Are Generally Lower Under the Galveston Plan

US Postal Service versus Fex Ex or UPS

http://slickdeals.net/forums/t53363.html

Ratings among consumers are nearly identical for USPS & UPS, with fedex doing a little better than both.

As far as supercomputers, much of the research on them is done with government intervention in the form of taxpayer subsidies. Some research (like the PS3 chipset which will be used to make a 1.6 petaflop computer) was done privately, but much research is still paid for by taxpayers instead of consumers.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2002/tc20021226_4930.htm

In the last few years, the U.S. supercomputer industry hasn't had much to cheer about. Government funding had slowed considerably, crimping a major catalyst and incubator for the innovative technologies behind powerful supercomputers.


I don't think in all the time I've been debating you that I've ever seen you make a persuasive argument. Taxpayer funding of industry (as opposed to consumer funding of industry) is going to get results, funding is funding. Some gov programs are better than private, some are worse.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Wait... I may be on the verge of doing a 180 on my attitude toward government because I've found proof positive that government can help and make peoples' lives better. Please consult this thread:

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?t=513706

I will now sleep much more safely and secure knowing that your and my tax dollars are protecting the American public from excessive folate levels found in Vegemite.

It's got to make you well-up and want to cry knowing a major portion of your hard-earned income is going toward protecting US citizens from this clear and immanent danger.

Everyone knows Vegemite is a zionist conspiracy.

 

[mrplunkey]

The burden of proof is on the person who makes blanket statements. If you are going to say 'government is always going to fail' you need to back it up.




http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...ital+quality+private&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

VA hospitals outscore private ones in surveys


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376238-1,00.html

How VA Hospitals Became The Best
No longer a nation's shame, veteran care is acing competitors




http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-05socsec2.htm

Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan........in general, benefits are lower for those with lower earnings and/or with a greater number of dependents who qualify for Social Security.”[3]........Retirement Benefits Are Generally Lower Under the Galveston Plan



http://slickdeals.net/forums/t53363.html

Ratings among consumers are nearly identical for USPS & UPS, with fedex doing a little better than both.

As far as supercomputers, much of the research on them is done with government intervention in the form of taxpayer subsidies. Some research (like the PS3 chipset which will be used to make a 1.6 petaflop computer) was done privately, but much research is still paid for by taxpayers instead of consumers.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2002/tc20021226_4930.htm

In the last few years, the U.S. supercomputer industry hasn't had much to cheer about. Government funding had slowed considerably, crimping a major catalyst and incubator for the innovative technologies behind powerful supercomputers.


I don't think in all the time I've been debating you that I've ever seen you make a persuasive argument. Taxpayer funding of industry (as opposed to consumer funding of industry) is going to get results, funding is funding. Some gov programs are better than private, some are worse.

You should have dug-up some study, poll, or op-ed piece that says Cobol is superior to C++ too, since you seem to have an appetite for ferreting-out links that only support your arguments.

That VA claim is scandalous. I've spent my entire life in healthcare until 2004 and I'd go to a faith healer before I'd set foot inside a VA hospital.

And sure, there are studies that show Social Security can theortically outperform private investments, but those convieniently gloss-over the fact that billions and billions of taxpayer dollars have to be put into SS to shore-up the system. If an individual setup a "retirement" system that mirrored social security he'd be sent to jail -- for operating an illegal panzi scheme.

P.S. It just dawned on me that NASA is a government agency too -- so I bet I *could* captain the next space shuttle mission simply by claiming they can't prove I'm not the best astronaut in the world.

 

[mrplunkey]

Everyone knows Vegemite is a zionist conspiracy.

Nice job deflecting an obvious and criminal waste of taxpayer money by our government. I'd bet that the administration, execution and promulgation of that "ban" is costing taxpayers millions and millions of dollars in red tape and labor.

You should have stuck to your playbook and dug-up some obscure survey that shows that Vegemite ban actually saves taxpayer money by reducing the incident rate of influenza.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Nice job deflecting an obvious and criminal waste of taxpayer money by our government. I'd bet that the administration, execution and promulgation of that "ban" is costing taxpayers millions and millions of dollars in red tape and labor.

You should have stuck to your playbook and dug-up some obscure survey that shows that Vegemite ban actually saves taxpayer money by reducing the incident rate of influenza.

Nice job writing off studies that don't verify what you choose to believe.

Who gives a shit about a vegamite ban. Private companies make mistakes too. I seem to remember something called 'new coke'. Are you such a market fanatic that you can't even see that private industry screws up every now and again as well?

 

[Lao Tzu]

Nice job deflecting an obvious and criminal waste of taxpayer money by our government. I'd bet that the administration, execution and promulgation of that "ban" is costing taxpayers millions and millions of dollars in red tape and labor.

You should have stuck to your playbook and dug-up some obscure survey that shows that Vegemite ban actually saves taxpayer money by reducing the incident rate of influenza.

vegamite can interact with MAO-I drugs, causing dangerous side effects.

 

[mrplunkey]

vegamite can interact with MAO-I drugs, causing dangerous side effects.

Much better -- I was afraid you were "slipping".

And now we could prove the legitimacy of the ban if the government would just waste $150M in a 5-year study. By they time they get through cooking the numbers, it will generate a net theoretical savings in overall healthcare. Hell, I bet you could even count the supposed benefits toward forcing everyone into government-controlled healthcare

 

[mrplunkey]

Who gives a shit about a vegamite ban. Private companies make mistakes too. I seem to remember something called 'new coke'. Are you such a market fanatic that you can't even see that private industry screws up every now and again as well?

You need to do more marketing research.

The Real Story of New Coke
-------------------------------
To hear some tell it, April 23, 1985, was a day that will live in marketing infamy.

That's the day The Coca-Cola Company took arguably the biggest risk in consumer goods history, announcing that it was changing the formula for the world's most popular soft drink, and spawning consumer angst the likes of which no business has ever seen.

The Coca-Cola Company introduced reformulated Coca-Cola®, often referred to as "new Coke®," marking the first formula change in 99 years. The company didn't set out to create the firestorm of consumer protest that ensued; instead, The Coca-Cola Company intended to re-energize its Coca-Cola brand and the cola category in its largest market, the United States.

That firestorm ended with the return of the original formula, now called Coca-Cola classic®, a few months later. The return of original formula Coca-Cola on July 11, 1985, put the cap on 79 days that revolutionized the soft-drink industry, transformed The Coca-Cola Company and stands today as testimony to the power of taking intelligent risks, even when they don't quite work as intended.

"We set out to change the dynamics of sugar colas in the United States, and we did exactly that -- albeit not in the way we had planned," then chairman and chief executive officer Roberto Goizueta said in 1995 at a special employee event honoring the 10-year anniversary of "new Coke."

"But the most significant result of 'new Coke' -- by far," Mr. Goizueta said, "was that it sent an incredibly powerful signal ... a signal that we really were ready to do whatever was necessary to build value for the owners of our business."

The story of "new Coke" is widely recalled, but the context is often forgotten. In 1985, The Coca-Cola Company's share lead over its chief competitor, in its flagship market, with its flagship product, had been slowly slipping for 15 consecutive years. The cola category in general was lethargic. Consumer preference for Coca-Cola was dipping, as was consumer awareness. That changed, of course, in the summer of 1985 as the consumer outcry over "new Coke" was replaced by consumer affection for Coca-Cola classic.

The fabled secret formula for Coca-Cola was changed, adopting a formula preferred in taste tests of nearly 200,000 consumers. What these tests didn't show, of course, was the bond consumers felt with their Coca-Cola -- something they didn't want anyone, including The Coca-Cola Company, tampering with.

The events of the spring and summer of '85 -- pundits blasting the "marketing blunder of the century," consumers hoarding the "old" Coke, calls of protests by the thousands -- changed forever The Coca-Cola Company's thinking.

At the 10-year anniversary celebration, Mr. Goizueta characterized the "new Coke" decision as a prime example of "taking intelligent risks." He urged all employees to take intelligent risks in their jobs, saying it was critical to the company's success. Many of the employees there that day had worked for the company in 1985 and remembered the thousands of calls and consumer complaints.

Calls flooded in not just to the 800-GET-COKE phone line, but to Coca-Cola offices across the United States. By June 1985, The Coca-Cola Company was getting 1,500 calls a day on its consumer hotline, compared with 400 a day before the taste change. People seemed to hold any Coca-Cola employee -- from security officers at our headquarters building to their neighbors who worked for Coke -- personally responsible for the change.

Mr. Goizueta received a letter addressed to "Chief Dodo, The Coca-Cola Company." He often said he was more upset that it was actually delivered to him! Another person wrote to him asking for his autograph -- because, in years to come, the signature of "one of the dumbest executives in American business history" would be worth a fortune.

When the taste change was announced, some consumers panicked, filling their basements with cases of Coke®. A man in San Antonio, Texas, drove to a local bottler and bought $1,000 worth of Coca-Cola. Some people got depressed over the loss of their favorite soft drink. Suddenly everyone was talking about Coca-Cola, realizing what an important role it played in his or her life.

Protest groups -- such as the Society for the Preservation of the Real Thing and Old Cola Drinkers of America (which claimed to have recruited 100,000 in a drive to bring back "old" Coke) -- popped up around the country. Songs were written to honor the old taste. Protesters at a Coca-Cola event in downtown Atlanta in May carried signs with "We want the real thing" and "Our children will never know refreshment."

When the announcement of the return of "old" Coca-Cola was made in July 1985, those hoarding as many as 900 bottles in their basements could stop their self-imposed rationing and begin to drink the product as they always had -- as often as they'd like.

That July day, the story that the "old" Coca-Cola was returning to store shelves led two network newscasts and made the front page of virtually every major newspaper. Consumers applauded the decision. In just two days after the announcement of Coca-Cola classic, The Coca-Cola Company received 31,600 telephone calls on the hotline. Coca-Cola was obviously more than just a soft drink.

In 1985, Coca-Cola classic was introduced alongside Coca-Cola ("new Coke"), and the two brands had distinct advertising campaigns, with the youthful, leading edge "Catch the Wave" campaign for the new taste of Coke and the emotional "Red, White and You" for Coca-Cola classic.

Later, the name of the new taste of Coca-Cola was changed to Coke II; the product is no longer available in the United States.

The events of 1985 changed forever the dynamics of the soft-drink industry and the success of The Coca-Cola Company, as the Coca-Cola brand soared to new heights and consumers continued to remember the love they have for Coca-Cola.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Much better -- I was afraid you were "slipping".

And now we could prove the legitimacy of the ban if the government would just waste $150M in a 5-year study. By they time they get through cooking the numbers, it will generate a net theoretical savings in overall healthcare. Hell, I bet you could even count the supposed benefits toward forcing everyone into government-controlled healthcare

WHile I'm on it we should mandate marriage for all men, since marriage extends lifespan by about 5 years. Think of all the money we'll save in medicare. Then we can mandate exercise, we can have giant courtyards of people doing exercise at 8am everyday. That'll make our nation fit. Why stop there though, I think we need to buy everyone a car, and if you make more than 500k a year you should be forced to apologize on TV for being so wasteful when others have so little.

I have seen documentaries on TV, some of which discussed new coke. New coke was not intented to have that effect, it was totally unexpected. Even the ex heads get people asking them if they made new coke on purpose just so it would flop and they generally laugh and say no.

 

[mrplunkey]

WHile I'm on it we should mandate marriage for all men, since marriage extends lifespan by about 5 years. Think of all the money we'll save in medicare. Then we can mandate exercise, we can have giant courtyards of people doing exercise at 8am everyday. That'll make our nation fit. Why stop there though, I think we need to buy everyone a car, and if you make more than 500k a year you should be forced to apologize on TV for being so wasteful when others have so little.

Your comments about healthy living mandates, while sarcastic, make an excellent point. Americans are going to do whatever the hell they want. We're the thinnest and the fattest. The most moral and most immoral. Our healthiest eat as healthy as anyone in the world and our fattest eat worse than the worst in the world.

Which is one of the many reasons I oppose having taxpayers pay for it.

I would (and I'm very serious here) love to see a 5%-8% incremental income tax on anyone 10%-25% above their ideal body weight (when adjusted for muscle mass). Then another 5%-8% incremental cost that kicks in for the 25%-50% range and then something even higher for the 50% range. That would make a dent in covering skyrocketing healthcare costs.

 

[Gambino]

interesting read plunkey, the coke article

 

[mrplunkey]

I have seen documentaries on TV, some of which discussed new coke. New coke was not intented to have that effect, it was totally unexpected. Even the ex heads get people asking them if they made new coke on purpose just so it would flop and they generally laugh and say no.

Well, I don't know if I can compete with your insight gained through television... but let me give it a try:

1) Coca cola had been losing market share for 15 years in a row.

2) The carbonated soft drink market had been flat or slowly shrinking as well.

3) A slow but steady leak in the boat is the worst thing that can happen to a market leader. When bad things happen fast, it usually shocks companies and they respond. Slower trends are actually harder to turn-around. Most MBA's would use the "boiled frog" analogy, but that's too cliche for me

4) Coke execs did exactly what they should have done in this situation -- shake things up. It's also cliche to say that's a textbook move, but it *was* a textbook move.

5) People didn't like the change, nor did they like the new product.

6) Changing coke did, however, galvinize the customer base and recaptured interest in the entire segment.

7) Therefore the executives made a textbook move, but the change and product flopped, but they got exactly what they wanted anyway.

It's like making the right play call, botching the play, and scoring a touchdown anyway.

 

[mrplunkey]

interesting read plunkey, the coke article

It really is good stuff. The executives really did exactly what they should have done in trying to shake up the product and the segment in general.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Well, I don't know if I can compete with your insight gained through television... but let me give it a try:
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

Although the company insisted, and the historical record suggests, it was an unplanned reaction to the perceived rejection of New Coke, many urban legends and conspiracy theories that continue to circulate claim it was planned all along and offer various reasons for it.


Do you post anything that isn't wishful thinking?

 

[Gambino]

It really is good stuff. The executives really did exactly what they should have done in trying to shake up the product and the segment in general.

lol at dumbasses freaking out and stockpiling coke

 

[mrplunkey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

Although the company insisted, and the historical record suggests, it was an unplanned reaction to the perceived rejection of New Coke, many urban legends and conspiracy theories that continue to circulate claim it was planned all along and offer various reasons for it.


Do you post anything that isn't wishful thinking?

The result was what they wanted. The mechanism through which they recieved that result was what was totally unanticipated. They even packaged-up this as a 4-hour mini case for use in business schools. Like I said earlier... they called the right play, then executed it poorly, but scored a touchdown anyway on a broken play.

And how would I know? Well... when you do an MBA at the Goizueta Business School (Emory... Atlanta... Coca-Cola university) they parade Coke business cases and coke execs in and out all the time as speakers. My only disappointment was our class missed-out on Goiz himself -- he blew us off.

Does the concept of a company that's losing share in a shrinking market being desperate and wanting to do something radical seem that strange to you?