It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BUSINESS: America: #22; 49; 54 and Falling Fast

page: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Yet more liberal BS propganda from an america hater.

.....Liberalism a mental disorder!




I am deeply hurt DrH. But moving along.


Sweetie - the article is about a compilation of demographic studies from a
variety of sources, many business generated.

...It is inside intel about how business views the "US market" - and if we can
get past the emotional resistance, will illuminate the premises on which many
new business and government policies are based.

Surely you can see the potential benefit in such an analysis? ...Meaning it's a
good thing to know exactly what is happening, and why.



.




posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Sweetie - the article is about a compilation of demographic studies from a
variety of sources, many business generated.


That's the thing. It isn't. Nothing you posted was a demographic. A demographic breaks down the American population, it does not compare things like our healtchare system to the rest of the world's. The World Health Organization does not do demographics for companies. None of the sources of your information do. It all seemed to come from the book the European Dream, or the New York Times.

None of this information would be useful to a business.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Sweetie - the article is about a compilation of demographic studies from a
variety of sources, many business generated.


That's the thing. It isn't. Nothing you posted was a demographic.

None of this information would be useful to a business.




Demographics are marketing profiles. The original sources of this information are various demographic studies. Nobody went out to put down the USA. The info is what it is.

And yes, the info is very useful to international businesses deciding what to invest, where, and in what.

.......................




From the article, "For example, "In a recent survey of the world's 50 best companies, conducted by Global Finance, all but one were European." "

FYI - Global Finance is a division of Elsevier, "A world leading, multiple-media publisher of scientific, technical and health information products and services, with 7,000 employees in 73 locations around the globe."

"Global Finance Journal provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and techniques among academicians and practitioners and, thereby, advances applied research in global financial management.

Global Finance Journal publishes original, creative, scholarly research that integrates theory and practice and addresses a readership in both business and academia.

Articles reflecting pragmatic research are sought in areas such as financial management, investment, banking and financial services, accounting, and taxation. Global Finance Journal welcomes contributions from scholars in both the business and academic community and encourages collaborative research from this broad base worldwide."


IMO - Your and other's resistance to viewing this information objectively is emotional in origin. You need to step back, and figure out why this is happening to you.


.

[edit on 11-3-2005 by soficrow]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
That was one piece of information. One. How exactly does the World Health Organization help businesses?



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
That was one piece of information. One. How exactly does the World Health Organization help businesses?




The WHO collects info worldwide. Anyone has a right to access and use that info as they wish. WHO stats are widely used.

Writers collect information from a variety of sources. The article and book cited above are both compilations - you need check the source to find out who did what particular study. We know Global Finance was used as a source.


More on Global Finance

XRT Named Best Treasury Management Software by Global Finance
Monday February 28, 8:00 am ET

"KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa., Feb. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- Global Finance magazine has named XRT Best Treasury Management Software for 2005 in its annual rankings of best treasury and cash management banks and providers.

Global Finance editors - with input from industry analysts, corporate executives and technology experts - selected the best providers of treasury and cash management software and services. Factors considered included market leadership, customer service, competitive pricing, and innovative technologies.

......Global Finance, which celebrates its 18th year of publishing in 2005, has 50,000 subscribers and more than 250,000 readers in over 158 countries. This audience includes chairmen, presidents, CEOs, CFOs, treasurers, and other financial officers responsible for making investments and strategic business decisions for large global companies and financial institutions. Global Finance targets most of the 8,000 key portfolio investors who control over 80 percent of all assets under professional management."



.



[edit on 11-3-2005 by soficrow]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Writers collect information from a variety of sources. The article and book cited above are both compilations - you need check the source to find out who did what particular study. We know Global Finance was used as a source.


Yet once again you talk more about the same source...


The WHO collects info worldwide. Anyone has a right to access and use that info as they wish. WHO stats are widely used


They don't collect information for businesses. They don't do demographics for corporations.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


The WHO collects info worldwide. Anyone has a right to access and use that info as they wish. WHO stats are widely used


They don't collect information for businesses. They don't do demographics for corporations.




Corporations can and do access and use the WHO's information. ...You might check out this thread if you are honestly trying to understand the relationships between the health, credit and banking industries:


Health, Credit and Banking


.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Corporations can and do access and use the WHO's information. ...You might check out this thread if you are honestly trying to understand the relationships between the health, credit and banking industries:


Nothing in that topic talked about the World Health Organization. It certainly doesn't explain why companies would want to know how America's health system was ranked with Europe.

And I believe I already asked why this business about demographics has only come up pages into the topic, and nothing like it was said in your original post.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

And I believe I already asked why this business about demographics has only come up pages into the topic, and nothing like it was said in your original post.




Hmmm. The article is about demographics. I unfortunately assumed basic knowledge on the part of readers. When I realized the gap, I posted a definition and more of an explanation.

...Not sure what your real issues are. Seem to be contentious, but don't know why you're re-directing discussion or where you want to go with it.

...My hope was that we could look at the demographics, see where they led business and why, especially regarding policies and laws. ...And then move on from there. Unfortunately, productive discussion has been re-directed to basic definitions and a focus on the legitimacy of sources - pretty much a moot point given that the demographics already are in use, and that this is meant to be an investigation of how they are used.

.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Trying to grasp (yet again) the 'jest' of this thread:
Demographic studies are widely used, ergo important. Business uses these studies and reports made from them

I think this is the thread.

Based upon this assumption I still maintain that demographics are nothing more than a tool. While a very widely used tool, one nonetheless. Demographically where is America? That is too broad a question. Demographics are comparative- something must be compared to something else. This is the major flaw in demo-studies.

'49% of all adults prefer X toilet paper. Based upon research performed under clinical studies at the Wonkings Institute of Better Health Care 49% of the participants prefered X.'

Sure, compared to leaves and corn cobs. One needs to remember that corn cobs have a decent friability unlike paper. With reasonable care they (according to legend) are reusable. Bark seems to have the longest self life.

(The study does not measure the biodegradable qualities)

Back to the 50 best companies- what other factors are considered? Are the health care and educational systems available considered? Entrepreneurial ability- is that measured?

There is an entire flip-side that doesn't get measured.

How many McDonalds, Burger Kings, Captain D's, Pizza Huts, used car lots, plant nurseries, day-cares, fix-it shops, vegetable stands, etc. are available to non-industrial workers in Europe? What impediments to starting a business exist? Can Europeans 'dream the dream?' What are the stats on new small business in Europe?

Until Europe socially and culturally has the societal avenues available to people that get the spark no matter what these studies show America will hold a doorway no other country holds.

I fully suspect that in the period 1865-1900 America lagged behind Europe in medical care, education, banking and a plethora of other measurable targets. None of that mattered, America was happening. Within a few years the present dour atmosphere will be gone in America and opportunities will abound and beckon the world yet once again.

From its inception, long before it was a nation of its own, America has beckoned to the world. China will be a real challenge, maybe more than any other. In the long run these demographic studies will end up in the waste can or buried in some file cabinet behind corporate reports that were used to justify one thing or the other.

Unless corporatism grabs a substantially larger share of the American economy than it presently holds America will continue to be what it has in its past. Nothing Europe, Asia or any other part of the globe can do about it.
.

.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Trying to grasp (yet again) the 'jest' of this thread:
Demographic studies are widely used, ergo important. Business uses these studies and reports made from them

I think this is the thread.

Based upon this assumption I still maintain that demographics are nothing more than a tool.





True. But it is a tool that is used, and as a basis upon whish to make business decisions of all kinds - not just for marketing.






While a very widely used tool, one nonetheless. Demographically where is America? That is too broad a question. Demographics are comparative- something must be compared to something else. This is the major flaw in demo-studies.





Not if you're deciding where to set up shop to publish scientific research - or a laboratory, for example. You go where the action is. That's the purpose of comparative demographics.

...Point being that demographics are used in a variety of different ways - many of which impact our economy and individual lives.






Until Europe socially and culturally has the societal avenues available to people that get the spark no matter what these studies show America will hold a doorway no other country holds.





Absolutely. We have anti-class action legislation, allow predatory financial marketing and disallow comprehensive personal bankruptcy, provide corporate loopholes for taxation and let the little guys carry the burden, and the list goes on.

America is corporate heaven, no doubt about it. Quite an edge.






In the long run these demographic studies will end up in the waste can or buried in some file cabinet behind corporate reports that were used to justify one thing or the other.





Of course. And new studies will be done because the only valuable information is current.






Unless corporatism grabs a substantially larger share of the American economy than it presently holds America will continue to be what it has in its past. Nothing Europe, Asia or any other part of the globe can do about it.
.




IMO - corporations already own and run America. And the world is not about nation competing against nation. "Nations" are just markets and corporations run the world. Well, wherever and whatever they can get away with.


.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
. . . if you're deciding where to set up shop to publish scientific research - or a laboratory, for example. You go where the action is. That's the purpose of comparative demographics.

JoeDoaks
Until Europe socially and culturally has the societal avenues available to people that get the spark no matter what these studies show America will hold a doorway no other country holds.

Absolutely. We have anti-class action legislation, allow predatory financial marketing and disallow comprehensive personal bankruptcy, provide corporate loopholes for taxation and let the little guys carry the burden, and the list goes on.

America is corporate heaven, no doubt about it. Quite an edge.

IMO - corporations already own and run America. And the world is not about nation competing against nation. "Nations" are just markets and corporations run the world. Well, wherever and whatever they can get away with.

While this is your perception I don't believe it. America is the land of small business. There has never been a time in America where big business employed half as many people as small business.

Large business grabs the headlines because of many factors, one is their own public relations staff. Large business cries the most and leaves the quickest. In the long run, America is business- not corporatism but business.

Above, sofi, you state America is a corporate heaven and therefore has an edge- yet in another post (or two) you decry that 49 of 50 'top companies' are not American. Is there a little duplicity here?

Every now and then a major move is made to 'bust the trusts.' When that is made it takes years to accomplish. The last big move was telephones. ATT is all but gone now yet America leads the world in telecommunication innovation. Sure there is a Canadian or Norwegian company making this or that superior product but all the world combined can not compare to the thousands of small shops making one-off and specialty products as exists in America.

One major reason large companies move offshore is the crabbed U.S. tax system Another of course is wages. But there are other costs as well that miss the evening news (at 10). Political considerations- Malaysia is friendly to semiconductors and offers government incentives- free factories! Japan offers cheap and easy access to its own bond market.

Additionally, by locating in other countries, business avoids protective tariffs. Look at the market in China for cheap xyz. Perception means more than reality, always has.

The classic example in history is the Mongol invasions of Europe. The Europeans outnumbered the Mongols, had better weapons and armor- demographically were superior. Enter chaos- the always indefinable, that which can not reliably be quantified- fear.

By rumor the Mongols had the Europeans beat. The rumor became reality.

To your example of research facilities- why this is beyond me. Research facilities rely on no road grid, no access to anything of any magnitude. The same research facility could be built in Arizona that could be built in Nebraska. Sure the results, ease and to a small degree the costs would be different but as to demographics, the location is pretty much a roll of the dice.

The head of the research facility might like Arizona because he likes to fish for mountain trout. So, being clever he sets out some criteria that more easily fits Arizona then orders a study. Surprise, surprise, surprise (Andy) the high mountain region of eastern Arizona proves to be the ideal location. As the facility is being built the final contract with the University of Iowa is concluded.


Let's deal with the legal differences another time.
.

.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

sofi says America is corporate heaven.

While this is your perception I don't believe it. America is the land of small business. There has never been a time in America where big business employed half as many people as small business.





True re employment, untrue re assets I believe. ...But I too think small business is the future, as well as the past.






Above, sofi, you state America is a corporate heaven and therefore has an edge- yet in another post (or two) you decry that 49 of 50 'top companies' are not American. Is there a little duplicity here?





No duplicity. My point is that we are a heaven for international corporations. Our laws treat us as a "market" - and we are used that way. When I said it was an edge, was being sarcastic, meaning international corporations have the edge over US citizens (and small business, for that matter).






To your example of research facilities- why this is beyond me. Research facilities rely on no road grid, no access to anything of any magnitude.





Relies on many factors. Europe is now the place to be in science - and that's where the big investment dollars go. ...The best the US has to offer is a deregulated climate - but it's not enough apparently.


.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Europe is now the place to be in science - and that's where the big investment dollars go. ...The best the US has to offer is a deregulated climate - but it's not enough apparently.

This may be true, I haven't looked into it. In bio-chem I have no doubt. When (not if) Europeans finally decide DNA created humans has gone too far the research will move to another place.

As I said- ""Arizona""
Research facilities can be built (virtually) anywhere. Often times higher education facilities or medical facilities have much to do with location, but not always.

Research does not equate to wealth or productivity. Cuba has a world class drug (can't remember the ATS thread on it) but it certainly does not equate to wealth.

All this number #1, 22, 49 . . . stuff is bogus anyway. There is one American product the rest of the world can't touch- grains.

Add Canada, Argentina, Poland, Brazil, Russia, Ukraine and whomever else you want and America is still numero UNO


Same with garbage, scrap metal, emissions. Don't laugh- these are the true measures of industrial output.

It doesn't matter who produces the most steel or makes the most cars- what matters is who BUYS the most.

Reaganomics were proven wrong and are still wrong. Demand drives wealth, not supply.
.

.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

Originally posted by soficrow
Europe is now the place to be in science - and that's where the big investment dollars go. ...The best the US has to offer is a deregulated climate - but it's not enough apparently.

This may be true, I haven't looked into it. In bio-chem I have no doubt. When (not if) Europeans finally decide DNA created humans has gone too far the research will move to another place.





US lost it's lead in science big time over the past 4 years - even tho there are NO biochem/stem cell bans. ...Unlike the US, many (most?) European nations have banned human cloning - altho they support therapeutic cloning research.







All this number #1, 22, 49 . . . stuff is bogus anyway.




Not when assessing a market for purposes of determining location, for example. ...The US offers huge corporate tax breaks, deregulation, few constraints - and still is losing market share re production.






There is one American product the rest of the world can't touch- grains.





There are troubles in the breadbasket because of drought and the depletion of the Great Plains/Ogallala aquifer. Production is down, and producers are scared - asking for a timeline on the final depletion (12 - 25 years, optimistically)...

Also, NAFTA created structural changes that impacted the profitability of US agricultural production:





In addition to eliminating hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs (Scott and Rothstein 1997), NAFTA has also initiated tremendous structural changes in all three member countries (EPI et al 1997). For example, the U.S. trade surplus in agricultural products has declined sharply with Mexico, and has turned into a deficit with Canada. However, changes in the trade balance mask even larger changes in the structure of agriculture. Some U.S. producers of corn and cattle have profited, as have all the major grain trading companies, while Canadian Dairy farms, US farmers growing wheat, barley, fruits and vegetables, and Mexican corn producers have all suffered catastrophic losses (Scott 1999b).


Source



...So the US is up in cash grains, but not others.

...My reading is that international grain trading companies have profited but US producers have taken it up the butt. ...? ....Plus, investors have been pulling out for a while. Kansas towns are even giving away free land to attract 'settlers.'

Not sure on this one, but things are nowhere near as rosy as they used to be, and I suspect, no where near as good as you think they still are.





It doesn't matter who produces the most steel or makes the most cars- what matters is who BUYS the most.

Reaganomics were proven wrong and are still wrong. Demand drives wealth, not supply.

.




Don't want to get into that discussion right now!


...But viewing the US as a primarily consumer market - with a high rate of unemployment and debt, which exports both labor and professional jobs leaving only a service sector for employment - how long do you really think the demand will remain attractive for anything but basic necessities?

Seems to me that you're right - the US market is being played as a demand market, not a supply market - and consumers are being 'indentured' to credit in order to create long term 'bread and butter' income for global financiers. .....Stable from the perspective of lenders, but pretty bleak from the other side of the fence, dontcha think?


.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
...But viewing the US as a primarily consumer market - with a high rate of unemployment and debt, which exports both labor and professional jobs leaving only a service sector for employment - how long do you really think the demand will remain attractive for anything but basic necessities?

. . . - the US market is being played as a demand market, not a supply market - and consumers are being 'indentured' to credit in order to create long term 'bread and butter' income for global financiers. .....Stable from the perspective of lenders, but pretty bleak from the other side of the fence, dontcha think?

I like that. I feel this is what is happening. the recent changes in the bankruptcy law echo this sentiment.

Supply/demand???

This also affects Mo NAY $$$$

The current state of affairs, defaults, etc. are a direct result of lending policies. It isn't the consumers fault, it is bankings fault. Interest rates always take a whipping. That is the wrong beast to punish. Lending policies are the beast of disaster.

You like demographics, find some on lending policies.

Banks only need about 1 1/2% difference between what they pay and what they lend to make a huge profit in a stable market, yet now we have 5% spread.

Why is that?

How can insurance companies break even or even lose a little on annuities yet end up making fortunes?

These are more important than a year or two of bad weather.

By the way sofi], the Great Plains (U.S.) are NOT the most important area for wheat



The Economist
How can one country simulataneously cause both Deflation and Inflation? The source of Deflation is due in large part to the labor arbitrage China has engendered, along with a commensurate extremely low cost production of goods. Call it the Wal-Mart effect. Inflation is simply due to the insatiable appetite China has for raw materials, as they industrialize what was a mostly agricultural nation of 2 Billion people (2010 projected, present: 1,298,847,624) into an industrial power house.


China grain
China's grain prices will remain basically stable this year, although the overall price level is expected to be higher than that of last year.


There is little possibility that the grain price will experience major fluctuations, and grain demand will remain stable this year.


If demand grows at an annual rate of 0.8 percent, China will require 494 billion kilograms of grain this year.

What's the 'demographics' of a crop failure in China?


Nothing is ever what it seems

.

.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

Originally posted by soficrow
...But viewing the US as a primarily consumer market - with a high rate of unemployment and debt, which exports both labor and professional jobs leaving only a service sector for employment - how long do you really think the demand will remain attractive for anything but basic necessities?

. . . - the US market is being played as a demand market, not a supply market - and consumers are being 'indentured' to credit in order to create long term 'bread and butter' income for global financiers. .....Stable from the perspective of lenders, but pretty bleak from the other side of the fence, dontcha think?


I like that. I feel this is what is happening. the recent changes in the bankruptcy law echo this sentiment.





Thanks Joe. But where do we go from here? How do we turn a service economy/consumer market back into a production economy?






You like demographics, find some on lending policies.





Not sure where to look. ...? Got any key words?






Banks only need about 1 1/2% difference between what they pay and what they lend to make a huge profit in a stable market, yet now we have 5% spread.

Why is that?

How can insurance companies break even or even lose a little on annuities yet end up making fortunes?





Can you explain what this means in simple terms?







If demand grows at an annual rate of 0.8 percent, China will require 494 billion kilograms of grain this year. ...What's the 'demographics' of a crop failure in China?


Nothing is ever what it seems





I confess. I don't have a clue what you're talking about here. (Have flu. Still braindead. Don't have the background anyway.) Could you please explain? Walk me through it step by step?


.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
O.K., so I don't get in too far over my own head-


Originally posted by soficrow
. . . where do we go from here? How do we turn a service economy/consumer market back into a production economy?


We don't.
Simple solution- with all the new producers in the world the U.S. has closed these doors.

What 'could' happen is a broadening of what is left. Lighter production is still diverse in the U.S. More 'buy America,' hold the government to its own laws. It is really sad to see a procurement (purchase) in the millions go for foreign goods because the American producer can not compete.

Many people lament the why of this. I believe it is simple- America has to pay for many things locally that do not get paid for 'overseas.' health care, unemployment, roads, police, etc. The foreigners don't have much costs for these things and yet these are the very costs that seperate advanced countries from backward ones. Some years back the U.S. slammed Japan for not having an infrastructure (roads, etc. outside the manufacturing centers). I had been to Japan at that time and the U.S. was right. Once outside a manufacturing zone Japan was mud roads and sporadic electricity. Japan changed and in so doing increased its costs. This opened the door fro Malaysia, Taiwan, Singapore and the rest.

You like demographics, find some on lending policies.


Originally posted by soficrow
Not sure where to look. ...? Got any key words?

Actually this was easier than it appears- bankruptcies. Bankruptcy figures (demographics) explain all kinds of things regarding lending policies. The U.S. numbers are widely used because the industry is the most developed:

    statistics
    Bankruptcy filings dropped nearly 4 percent in calendar year 2004, according to data released today by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Total bankruptcies filed in the twelve month period ending December 31, 2004, totaled 1,597,462, down 3.8 percent from the 1,660,245 petitions filed in the 12-month period ending December 31, 2003.

While 1.6 million is a lot the number is not overwhelming. So with bankruptcy in decline why was the new law passed?



Interesting explanation of what is really happening-
Reagan= 1st term not much affect, 2nd term bankruptcies increase from 300k to 900k under Bush 1
Bush 1= bankruptcies increase
Clinton= 1st term they decrease a little, 2nd term they increase dramatically to mid-term then drop
Bush 2= increase 1st term for 3 years then decrease

    Highest bankruptcy rates: Tennessee, Utah, Georgia, Alabama.

Utah is a surprise to me.

Banks only need about 1 1/2% difference between what they pay and what they lend to make a huge profit in a stable market, yet now we have 5% spread.

Why is that?

How can insurance companies break even or even lose a little on annuities yet end up making fortunes?


Originally posted by soficrow
Can you explain what this means in simple terms?

Probably not- I don't understand the insurance 'game.' I kind of knew it at one time but can't grasp it anymore. It has something to do with specialized tax treatment where an insutrance company gets to write-down (not off) expenses at a greater rate than other businesses. I imagine this is specialized expense items but I don't really remember. Anyway, by doing this an insurance company can pay out 4% on an annuity while making 3% on the underlying investment. On its surface a loss of 1% but because of the extraordinary write-downs a profit.

Banks- easy. I (bank) pay you 3% on your savings. I then use your money to borrow from the Fed up to 5 times what I have from you. I can lend virtually all of it. I must retain some for bad debts. So if I get $100k from you I then have close to $600k to loan. I am paying you 3% on $100k= $3,000 and getting 6% on $550k= $33,000 and paying the Fed 2.5% on $500k= $12,500. On your $100k I net out $17,500 plus fees. Not bad when you see the circle of it. A pure profit because none of it is the banks money!

Savings and Loans used to be 12 to 1 ratio but limited to non-consumer loans. Banks love low interest rates because their 'spread' is about the same regardless of the borrowers interest rate and more money gets lent at low rates then at high rates.

If demand grows at an annual rate of 0.8 percent, China will require 494 billion kilograms of grain this year. ...What's the 'demographics' of a crop failure in China?


Originally posted by soficrow
I confess. I don't have a clue what you're talking about here. (Have flu. Still braindead. Don't have the background anyway.) Could you please explain? Walk me through it step by step?
.

Sorry- you seem to be on a demographic bent at the moment. Like demographics are pure and true figures. If the Chinese have a crop failure and import 494 billion kilos of grain what impact is that REALLY on China?

Demographically will farmers move to cities? Will farmland become unusable? Will certain parts of the population shift to other areas?

I don't know.

Sorry I wagged out into la-la land on thiis. It's YOUR fault


Interesting stuff but not really appropo to ATS- unless- we add the conspiracy factor!

How about his- China has enormous U.S. money reserves. This U.S. engineers a crop failure in China. U.S. sells tons to China for U.S. dollars. No more U.S. money problem with China.

Could happen - - - -

.
(sorry you are sick- chicken soup
get well soon as you are missed)
.


[edit on 16-3-2005 by JoeDoaks]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Please excuse me if these issues have already been discussed in the thread (I joined late and currently do not have enough time to read it all, bad form, I know),
1. Don't let people on to the medical care problem, I was against it too until I became pre-med :-p and
2. I've heard that our national debt is 7.7 trillion dollars too (or at least there abouts); any idea how much money there is in the world? I think it'd be funny if we owed more money than exists.
-S
P.S. Joe, you've stolen the heck out of this post. Bravo, you'll make a good president... or assassinated conspiracy theorist one day. I'll vote for you.

[edit on 17-3-2005 by ServoHahn]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ServoHahn
Please excuse me if these issues have already been discussed in the thread (I joined late and currently do not have enough time to read it all, bad form, I know),
1. Don't let people on to the medical care problem, I was against it too until I became pre-med :-p and

I don't get it. What medical care problem?



P.S. Joe, you've stolen the heck out of this post. Bravo, you'll make a good president... or assassinated conspiracy theorist one day. I'll vote for you.

OBVIOUSLY you mean 'thread' (not post)


What can I say- sofi keeps pandering to me. I sometimes think she is baiting me

.

.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join