Another reason economists are dorks!

Kevan Smith wrote:

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 06:47:56 -0400, Stephen Harding from
Computer Science Dept UMass Amherst wrote:

So we "own" the oil from all these countries, yet still have to pay for it??!!!
Your concept of "ownership" seems different from mine.

Oil is an exlpicitly stated national interest. Our military and political
interventions keep us with cheap, relatively unfettered access to it. If oil
were traded in a market without U.S. military and political influence yet with
the same demand as today, the price would be incredibly higher than it is now.

Not necessarily.

OPEC learned in the early 70's that they could charge too high a price for oil.
They raised the price (reduced production) causing recession in much of the
western world and industrialized Asia. Suddenly, no one was buying as much of
their pricier oil, and OPEC countries suddenly found themselves without the
cash flow their economies had come to take for granted.

US policy is for "cheap" oil. This isn't just a good thing for the US as Europe
and industrialized Asia benefit too. You seem to think that only in the US is
cheap oil considered a good thing.

It is our domestic policy in not taxing it the way Europe does because of our
car-centric society that differentiates us from say Europe. Europe doesn't get
oil at a higher price than we do; they simply tax it more, or limit the types
of oil production/consumption they indulge in.


SMH

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 14:45:55 -0400, Eric S. Sande wrote:
You can go to http://www.sheldonbrown.com and learn everything you need
to know about repair and maintenance.

I was too lazy to do that at the time..

As you do more of this you will find that you need more specialized
tools for certain evolutions. As you do more of this you will find
that you can hack more common tools to do the same job.

Almost bought some tools today, but decided that with no
immediate need for them, I'd wait.

All part of the joy of cycling,

Yes indeed.
--
Rick Onanian

"Chalo" wrote

Under Saddam, an Iraqi could have a reasonable expectation of *driving
somewhere* without being machinegunned into chum because some heavily
armed 18-year-old mongoloid got flinchy.

I'm glad you respect our fighting men and women who are putting their
lives on the line, Chalo.

They are drawn from the lowest-performing of society; that's well
known. Even Shrubby's "No Child Left Behind" act requires that the
contact information for poor academic performers be furnished to
military recruiters so they can target their marketing.

Well known? Really.

Would you consider a high school teacher a mongoloid, low performer?
Or a TV weatheman?
Or a Linux developer?
Or the senior s/w developer for a medium size multinational corporation?

This is from a sample size of 4. Myself, and 3 former military people I know
and work with. People who have all left the military within the last few
years.

Would you consider the Secretary of State a low performer? Or Tome Daschle?
Or John Kerry? Or a whole bunch of other congresspersons, both Dem and Rep?

Entrance to the USAF and USN requires entrance exams, which a large
percentage of current high school seniors wuld not pass.
The Army requirements are somewhat lower, but deifnately not the lowest
performers. Have I known HS kids denied entrance because of poor performance
on those tests? Yep.

If what you say is true, then any fool who happens to walk in the door would
be accepted. And that is certainly not the case. I know this from direct
experience, whereas you are merely talking out your ass.


I can't speak for generations outside my experience, but today's US
military selects for those with deficiencies of intellect, social
prospects, and moral conscience. The results are there for all to
see.

Please show these selection criteria. I'm sure we'll be fascinated.

Pete

"Kevan Smith" /\/\ wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:33:38 -0400, Rick Onanian from
The
Esoteric c0wz' Society wrote:

In fact, the technology and structure
of the modern US military is such that deficient people are useless,
and certainly not worth the large cost of having them.

The "modern military" for the most part is about 10 to 30 years behind the
civilian world in terms of high tech. There are a few high-profile
exceptions,
but the vast majority of military personnel work on equipment that is
obsolete.
They call it job training, but the jobs they are trained to do simply
don't
exist anymore in the civilian economy.

How do you figure?

Aircraft mechanics? KC-10 and C-17 are the equal to just about any recent
civilian aircraft
Plumbers? New buildings go up every day. Same construction techniques as
eveywhere else.
Satellite comms? Not far, if at all, behind.
Base photographer? Using a new combo 35mm/digital Nikon.
Pass & ID office? Using standard, new PC's, with digital imaging, just like
the DMV.
Hospital equipment? In many areas, military hospitals *are* the cutting
edge.
Tanks? Sure they're old. And still the best.
Aircraft? F-15/16/18 being upgraded all the time. And the new F-22 coming
online now.
Aircraft carriers? Of course they're old. They're built to last decades.

Does the military use old equipment? Sure. But for the most part, well
maintained. But then...you'd bitch if they bought new stuff every year.
Older equipment is proven to work. I'd rather have an old whatever, that i
*know* works, than a new something or other which may crack at a crucial
moment. And the procurement cycle is a long one.

Which jobs do you speak of?
Infantry? well no.....there isn't much call for that.
Aircraft armament? Boeing and United doesn't fly a whole lot of bombs
around. At least I hope they don't.

Specifically, what old equipment do you refer to?

Pete

"Kevan Smith" /\/\ wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 02:39:01 GMT, "Pete" from Road Runner
High
Speed Online http://www.rr.com wrote:

Specifically, what old equipment do you refer to?

Well, the B-52 comes to mind, but that has also given more service than
ever
planned for and looks to do so for the next 47 years, too.

Yes, the BUFF is old, but pretty much the only *old* part is the airframe.
The avionics have been vastly and routinely upgraded, and there is a
perennial proposal to swap the 8 engines for 4 new ones.

The aircraft may be old, but tactics and maintenance techniques are very up
to date, and tools for the BUFF are continuously being upgraded.

Still, 80 productive years is damn impressive. And damn


Anyway, there's this:

JOB SKILLS TRAINING

Veterans Earn Less than Non-Veterans

Perhaps one of the best measures of the economic impact of joining the
military
is the analysis of whether a person who enters the military, on average,
earns
more or less than a comparable non-veteran. In a comprehensive overview of
14
studies which analyzed this question, Stephen R. Barley of the School of
Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell U. found that the average
post-Vietnam
War-era veteran will earn between 11% (Crane and Wise 1987) and 19% (Rosen
and
Taubman, 1982) less than non-veterans from comparable socioeconomic
backgrounds.
According to a 1990 study by Bryant and Wilhite, the average veteran will
earn
85 cents less per hour (about $1700 less per year) than non-veteran peers.

Well...All I can say is..I'm glad I'm on the other side of that scale....


Military Training is Primarily for Military Jobs

I can think of a whole lot that are pretty generic. My NCO Academy class. 20
people. Only 2 in really military specific jobs. Me, and another guy.
Others? Procurement, civil engineering, general office work, med tech, etc,
etc. The first day, we actually commented on the fact that so few were
actually in some sort of direct USAF combat stuff.


Bryant and Wilhite found that veterans averaged only 1.78 months of
training in
31 months of active duty.

I find that *very* hard to believe.
Formal training in my first 4 years: (aircraft armament specialist)
Tech school - 80 days
OJT - 3 hours/day for ~100 days, but really was all day/ every day
Recurring training - 2 days a month for 3.5 years
Training outside my speciality - maybe 20 days total

Total....9.5 months in 48 months.
And I know I'm forgetting some stuff.

Mangum and Ball, Ohio State researchers who received
funding from the military, found that only 12% of male veterans and 6% of
female
veterans surveyed made any use of skills learned in the military in their
civilian jobs.

And that goes back to...what jobs do they look for when they get out? Would
a motor pool guy necessarily go to a dealer body shop for a job? Maybe not.
But he *has* learned valuable people skills. Stuff he did not know when the
principal handed him that diploma.

I've been there. Raw recruit....and up to training/teaching other raw
recruits. I've seen the transition from scared teenager to competent adult.

Aircraft Armament Specialist. I did that for 16 years. Seemingly useless out
in the real world. But the basic mechanics are invaluable. How to turn a
wrench. How to troubleshoot a problem. How to interact with the boss.

Barley concludes, "The evidence on rates of return to training
and the probability of finding a job in one's chosen occupation, strongly
suggests that, all else being equal, young people should look to sources
of
training other than the military if they wish to optimize their careers."

One of the things they seemingly ignore is paid experience.
A HS grad, fresh out of school, is prepared for what? Very few jobs.
Med tech? Aircraft maintenance? Plumbing? Paralegal? Not a chance.

All of those start at $2000 minimum for a basic course. At the end, you have
a certificate stating you have passed course X.
No job, no nothing. You are cast out among all the other "no experience"
dudes.

For a kid who, for whatever reason, decides to go to the military....s/he
can come out after a few years with training and solid experience.

What law firm would take a brand new HS grad, and provide paralegal training
and give them a job? Or a dentist office for a dental tech?


Economic Opportunity?

Army Times reports that over 50,000 unemployed veterans are on the waiting
list
for the military's "retraining" program. The VA estimates that 1/3 of
homeless
people are vets.

50,000. A huge number. Currently, how many people are out looking for jobs?
The economy sucks. Unemployment is near a high. Even experienced, high tech
people are scrambling. College tech grads are flipping burgers.

1/3 of homeless are vets. Possibly. From what era? Vietnam? The draft, and
subsequent enforced combat, brought severe problems. Along with all the
other problems of the 60's generation.

How many Desert Sstorm vets are among the homeless? Sure, there might be a
few....but I'll bet the ratio is tiny. Even 10 years from now.

Draft vs volunteer is huge.

I'm not saying the military is, or should be, a jobs program. But it *can*
provide training, while the repient provides a vital fnction.

What was your military experience? IIRC, you were a med tech. How many
days/months of training did you receive?

Pete

Hey guys - I happened across this thread while not being able to sleep
tonight so I figure I will lend my opinion on this all as well. Right
now i'm in the Navy working as a electrician in the nuclear field -
meaning I am trained in all the theory of Reactor plants ( heat
exchangers / pumps / etc etc ) and work on the various electrical
machines that work to make a reactor powered propulsion system work.

Military Training is Primarily for Military Jobs
While that can be true for some Military jobs.. ( just like you can find
specifics in all job markets ) my training is widely sought after in
nuclear power plants and even general coal burning plants. i'm also a
certified electrician by trade now as well due to my experience in the
Navy and can therefore easily join a union out in the civilian world and
work as a electrical contractor of some sort. Also - Navy nukes are
sought after b/c of the training we go through.. if a someone can go
through the nuke pipeline ( the training in all it's rigors ) they can
be trained to do most anything in the real world and are looked upon as
a solid investment - even if they have to teach that person a new job.


12% of male veterans and 6% of female veterans surveyed made any use
of skills learned in the military in their civilian jobs.
i find that # very hard to believe and can also agree w/ what Pete said
about the things a person learns while working in the military. There is
so much more learned that just a technical skill of somesort.


Barley concludes, "The evidence on rates of return to training and
the probability of finding a job in one's chosen occupation,
strongly suggests that, all else being equal, young people should
look to sources
of
training other than the military if they wish to optimize their
careers."

Before i joined the military i lived and worked in Denver, CO. I was
working for a new and exciting company that dealt w/ fiber optics - at
the time i was your typical kid that was the best in computers - but
also w/ what Pete stated - the economy as of lately has been horrible
and to credit that statement further, i was laid off from my company and
w/ the 1000's of others in the greater Denver area, I could find no
work. This and other reasons drove me to the nuclear field in the Navy.
A steady job which has allowed me to learn a great deal of information
and yet still have time to ride my bike!! a plus


As for furthering my career - i will hopefully soon be a comissioned
officer and will be able to climb the pay scale a bit. And after that
happens, the opportunities for me to use my Navy learned skills will
increase greatly out in the civilian world.

sorry the bad sentences - i'm sleepy and a math major



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

McCool wrote:

As for furthering my career - i will hopefully soon be a
comissioned officer and will be able to climb the pay scale a bit. And
after that happens, the opportunities for me to use my Navy learned
skills will increase greatly out in the civilian world.
sorry the bad sentences - i'm sleepy and a math major
---------------------------------------------------------------

That's good-----bad writing and communication skills are required
to become an officer. If the orders you give are perfectly clear,
where's the deniability element when things go south? Like in the
direction of China.

Steve McDonald

In article ,
says...

"Kevan Smith" /\/\ wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:33:38 -0400, Rick Onanian from
The
Esoteric c0wz' Society wrote:

In fact, the technology and structure
of the modern US military is such that deficient people are useless,
and certainly not worth the large cost of having them.

The "modern military" for the most part is about 10 to 30 years behind the
civilian world in terms of high tech. There are a few high-profile
exceptions,
but the vast majority of military personnel work on equipment that is
obsolete.
They call it job training, but the jobs they are trained to do simply
don't
exist anymore in the civilian economy.

How do you figure?

Aircraft mechanics? KC-10 and C-17 are the equal to just about any recent
civilian aircraft
Plumbers? New buildings go up every day. Same construction techniques as
eveywhere else.
Satellite comms? Not far, if at all, behind.
Base photographer? Using a new combo 35mm/digital Nikon.
Pass & ID office? Using standard, new PC's, with digital imaging, just like
the DMV.
Hospital equipment? In many areas, military hospitals *are* the cutting
edge.
Tanks? Sure they're old. And still the best.
Aircraft? F-15/16/18 being upgraded all the time. And the new F-22 coming
online now.
Aircraft carriers? Of course they're old. They're built to last decades.

And constantly updated, especially in the communications and
electronics. The engineering plant is an older, well-proven and
understood deign because it's incredibly expensive to have to replace a
many-ton piece of equipment buried 100ft inside the ship.


.....


--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

In article , usenet-
says...
Hey guys - I happened across this thread while not being able to sleep
tonight so I figure I will lend my opinion on this all as well. Right
now i'm in the Navy working as a electrician in the nuclear field -
meaning I am trained in all the theory of Reactor plants ( heat
exchangers / pumps / etc etc ) and work on the various electrical
machines that work to make a reactor powered propulsion system work.

Military Training is Primarily for Military Jobs
While that can be true for some Military jobs.. ( just like you can find
specifics in all job markets ) my training is widely sought after in
nuclear power plants and even general coal burning plants. i'm also a
certified electrician by trade now as well due to my experience in the
Navy and can therefore easily join a union out in the civilian world and
work as a electrical contractor of some sort. Also - Navy nukes are
sought after b/c of the training we go through.. if a someone can go
through the nuke pipeline ( the training in all it's rigors ) they can
be trained to do most anything in the real world and are looked upon as
a solid investment - even if they have to teach that person a new job.


12% of male veterans and 6% of female veterans surveyed made any use
of skills learned in the military in their civilian jobs.
i find that # very hard to believe and can also agree w/ what Pete said
about the things a person learns while working in the military. There is
so much more learned that just a technical skill of somesort.


Barley concludes, "The evidence on rates of return to training and
the probability of finding a job in one's chosen occupation,
strongly suggests that, all else being equal, young people should
look to sources
of
training other than the military if they wish to optimize their
careers."

Before i joined the military i lived and worked in Denver, CO. I was
working for a new and exciting company that dealt w/ fiber optics - at
the time i was your typical kid that was the best in computers - but
also w/ what Pete stated - the economy as of lately has been horrible
and to credit that statement further, i was laid off from my company and
w/ the 1000's of others in the greater Denver area, I could find no
work. This and other reasons drove me to the nuclear field in the Navy.
A steady job which has allowed me to learn a great deal of information
and yet still have time to ride my bike!! a plus


As for furthering my career - i will hopefully soon be a comissioned
officer and will be able to climb the pay scale a bit. And after that
happens, the opportunities for me to use my Navy learned skills will
increase greatly out in the civilian world.

sorry the bad sentences - i'm sleepy and a math major

Just wait 'til you're writing evals for your people, and see how quickly
your writing improves, to keep your dept head from chewing your ass for
writing bad ones (I know this one from first hand experience).

(Former Nuke Officer on CGN's).

--
Dave Kerber

Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

"Eric S. Sande" wrote:

Is there no political newsgroup somewhere for this discourse? I starve
for bicycling content!

Well, I picked a 1975 or so Raleigh Record Ace out of the trash on
my way home from work, I'll get good use out of the parts, Weinmann
centerpulls in perfect condition, Raleigh branded Sun Tour ders, a
nice alloy stem and bars.

No cranks, wheels or seatpost, I think someone was stripping it
and went home for tools. Some important bolts were missing.

But the real prize is the frame. A lugged 65 cm job in black with
silver head tube and seat tube panel, really slick with the metal
head badge and all, a little scratched but no rust.

Lugwork pretty nice, paint ditto, not too heavy for a fixie or
beater.

Only problem is the size. 65 cm wasn't a typo, yes, its a 25 1/2
inch frame. I won't be riding this bike soon, but it's just the
right size for Osama bin Laden.

And you thought this wasn't a political post.

--

Haw! LOL!!
I'm looking for something similar myself all the time. Only in "real
world" size. Something that fits me and (likely) GWBush!
Bernie