Posted by: graemebird | September 4, 2011

Alkaline Water And Old-Cunt Injuries.

Suppose you are a young bloke and you bang your thumb with a hammer by accident? This example is taken from Dr  Jerry Tennant. Well suppose you do, what happens to your thumb and how does it get back to normal?

The thumb does not repair by way of repairing the hurt or killed cells in the thumb. You have maybe 70 trillion cells in your body, and if some of them get damaged or sick you don’t get better by repairing the old ones. Rather you get better by making new cells to replace the ones that have been injured or killed.

So what then happens to your thumb. Well your normal body pH is probably around 7.3-7.4. But this does not constitute enough electrons or voltage to make new cells. So your body directs electrons, voltage, blood and oxygen to that area. You thumb is in pain. Your thumb throbs. But if everything goes to plan, the electrons and nutrients are present, the new cells are created, and so your thumb heals.

Well thats what happens when you are young. Thats what happens when only one area is injured and your body can muster the required electrons, and other nutrients RIGHT AT THAT TIME to do the repair work.

But supposing you are old? You likely will be running on the low side of the pH distribution.  Or supposing you injure many places at once? You are going to be struggling to amass the electrons  to heal all these injuries at the one time. If you don’t have the electrons to heal those injuries then that area will likely change its polarity. Maybe it will go down to 6.9pH for some tiny part of the damaged area. The new cells won’t be built. And while the pain won’t be throbbing the pain will be there EVERY TIME YOU USE THAT INJURED AREA.

We are talking permanent pain-with-use. We are talking hurt areas of your body where the injury can never heal.  A ‘wound that will never heal.’  Every old cunt the Fisher-King or some terrible loser from a Tom Waits song.

When I was younger I got a nasty scar under my left-eyebrow from a mate  I was drinking with just before I caved in all his artificial teeth. He stumbled down the stairs and the management made me clean up the bloodstains; one stair and then the other. But I wouldn’t call that scar any sort of “old cunt injury.”

The injuries start accumulating if you are in a physical job and particularly when you start getting close to 40. I fractured my back in my twenties, moving a grand piano.  My arms and legs were strong, but my lower back was not as strong, and so simply because of the imbalance I felt something give way. Ten years later the chiropractor told me the news and looked at me accusingly, and it took me a long time to remember how I broke my back but I would not call that an old cunt injury.

Old cunt injuries are permanent pain because when your body had the opportunity to MAKE NEW CELLS in order to heal,  the incumbent undamaged cells, did not have the electrons to pull it off, and create the new cells, to restore normal function. Old cunt injuries are eternal like the cancer. You rub your sore elbow and you think to yourself “I’m such a fucking old cunt.”

Now old cunt injuries damage your total health because since they are areas of low pH and low oxygen, the pathogens go hog-wild breeding there and then they spread their poisons to the rest of the body.

So there am I thinking about the permanent soreness behind my left knee. The permanent soreness in my left thumb that I (probably) broke while swimming in Thailand.  My right elbow, that I may have injured arm-wrestling. Then I am thinking about the pain in the the top joint of my middle finger of my left-hand.  When I’m thinking about these permanent pain areas I’m thinking: ” I am such a fucking old cunt” Old before my rightful time. “I’m such a useless, broken-down, fucking-old cunt” I’m thinking.

Well thats what I WAS thinking in any case. Because all these injuries are gone. To so much as remember some of them for this post I’ve got to go and squeeze the appropriate area.  So yes there is the shadow of memory of the ghost of the pain in my left thumb joint if I go right ahead and squeeze it. Sure if I try I can find a difference between my left thumb-joint and the joint on my right thumb.

But apart from the shadow of the former pain, all the old cunt injuries are gone, and were I to make a great and unwarranted leap, I would say that I was an old cunt no longer.

All these injured areas have healed in less than a year. And I think I am on pretty solid ground to suggest that they have all healed down to phantom-remnant status thanks to ALKALINE WATER.

This is THEORY ……. and …. PRACTICE.

So here I am and after many months I can handle the strongest alkaline water without burning the lining from my stomach. Here comes the water. It hits my stomach, and my stomach must produce HCL molecules as a response. But for every HCL molecule that my body puts in my stomach it places a sodium-bicarbonate molecule in my bloodstream. When the alkaline water gets to my intestine if it was the strongest I could get it and if I guzzled a lot of it, then much of it will still absorb in my blood at high pH. So then all these electrons, one way or the other, are running through my bloodstream, they get to the old cunt injuries and SUDDENLY THE CELLS LOOK-ALIVE. Suddenly they have the electrons they need to repair the damage. And thats exactly what seems to have happened to me.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. From elsewhere:

    Got to tie a few disparate things together to show where our economic policy became unbalanced and what to do about it. It will take a few posts.

    Post 1:

    I remember a televised debate between treasurer Keating and opposition economic spokesman (he was not opposition leader at that time) John Hewson. Most of the Hawke-Keating “free market” reforms had been implemented at that point and it was pretty amazing stuff.

    Everything was going gangbusters and Keating had come up with a 9 billion dollar surplus which was huge money in those days. But it was totally unexpected that the Federal Government had become the chief (and pretty much the only) source of local savings in the economy.

    As a one-to-one result with the weak saving and dis-saving elsewhere in the economy, we were running these large balance of trade deficits at the time.

    This was at a time when economists were yet to come over all smug and decide that “trade deficits don’t matter.” All the economists were very concerned about the trade deficit and there was no consensus as to what to do about them.

    Nowhere did anyone make the mistake at that point, of messing up the concept of “comparative advantage” to explain the problems that have become manifest to almost everyone by now.

    So anyway the question was asked what to do about these trade deficits. Hewson said we ought to deal with them with bigger surpluses. This was both sensible and astonishing AT THE SAME TIME. Astonishing because Keatings surplus, was like nothing seen anywhere in the world for many decades.

    Keating had recently been at some meeting overseas and he thought the proposal preposterous. Because he pointed out that our act, both fiscally and monetarily, was so much tighter than anything anyone else was doing ….. how can it be that we ought to be still tighter?

    Both points of view were valid. And it was a mystery all around. Some people suggested that we ought to take the tax off interest earnings. Again a valid suggestion that would have helped just as stronger surpluses would have. But Keating said that obviously the people to benefit from that were the people with the most money. Which was fair enough too.

    Bob Santamaria’s suggestion was the best. Each person having a special account where the interest could be tax-free up to a level. This may have been good enough to overmatch the imbalance that our policy mix had created.

    Just to remind people, all the Keating moves seemed to be good and justifiable taken individually. But as a suite of policies they have lead to an imbalance which were mitigated by Keating-as-Treasurer and by Costello as well. This policy-mix imbalance was mitigated by excellent surpluses, but it was not corrected. And if we don’t correct this imbalance quickly, we are lost as a nation.

  2. “Graeme
    I actually likr seeing your comments occasionally, especially when you’re riffing about Ron Paul’s titsnium knees, Operation Mongoose and inflation causing homosexuality so for your own sake settle down.”

    Look you dumb Gook. Why talk to me. Your job was to tell Mark that he had been caught lying and he had to back down. And yet you gutless yellowman, you just piled on with that wop traitor cunt.

    Was it so hard for you to point out to Mark that he was wrong?

    • I want your opinion about the Gaede view of how the Teller-Ullam physics package works. The scientists were using Einstein, Planck and the like.

      If Gaede’s right, which process describes how the device works? Pusher-tamper abalation? X ray pressure? Foam plasma pressure?

      • Sorry, “dot” not “timwii”

      • I’m not sure Gaede has taken a position on the matter. So I cannot speak for him. Describe what you are talking about in your own words.

  3. You too Gab. This is the gutlessness of low expectations. If people had of had the sand to tell Mark NOT to lie and NOT to put words in peoples mouths, he’d probably be less of a chucklehead by now then what he is.

    • You were doing fine until you became a broken record. Is that it? Do you waver so easily that you resort to “He lied. He lied”? You’re better than that.

      • But you saw him lie. he tried to double down, and yet the first person you talked to was me. Sinclair banned me as soon as you opened your mouth.

      • You see they always do this GAB. They get around and start swarming Homer, or they break up any discussion bouncing off eachothers lies. They never retract. Its just incredible what complete cunts they are.

        Mark would have jabbered on putting words in my mouth all night. So of course I had to focus on one thing that he’d lied about and try and get him to back down. Its not acceptable that he didn’t back down or that the rest of you put up with this sort of thing.

  4. You complete cunt Sinclair. Why didn’t you stay the fuck out of it or moderate Mark for lying. Useless Jew cunt getting in the way.

    • NO GOOD YOU STUPID LYING WOP CUNT. YOU KNEW THAT MARK HAD LIED AND YOU HELPED HIM DOUBLE DOWN ON IT.

      • Mark has not lied. YOU YOURSELF SAW HIM LIE AND YOU WENT TO HIS AID AS A RESULT YOU FILTHY WOP CUNT.

      • YOU ARE JUST GETTING YOURSELF IN DEEPER YOU STINKING FILTH.

  5. “You gave him a good run though, Sinclair. No one can fault you there.”

    Just ridiculous GAB. Sinclair isn’t fit to be a moderator of anything if he’s going to let the conversation be obstructed by shameless lying.

  6. Typical of that dishonorable idiot Sinclair that he would side with Mark and refuse to take him to task.

  7. “Really, it’s the ultimate libertarian protest, using the market to achieve peaceable outcomes.”

    So Sinclair sez:

    “No it isn’t. Protest and boycott are acts of violence. A libertarian approach would be to buy the stock and change company policy.”

    Sinclair is such a fucking dummy. I mean the fellow really has no idea.

  8. You weak piece of shit Bird, too cowardly to address any of my comments.

  9. Birdflaps, you’re the self-delusional coward as you prove with every tedious sockpuppeting post.

    And you’re consumed with envy (and possibly jealousy) of Mr Bird – granted the envy is warranted – hence your frenzied contentless abuse of him.

    Fuck off back to Group Think Cataleprosy, the pre-eminent Oz political blog greasetrap (H/T Nabakov).

    • I have no idea who FDB is. And he (?) knows nothing about me.

      He obviously didn’t make a good impression if he claims to remember me. Perhaps his blog comments were so lame or bad that I’ve forgotten him. Memory (loss) is a great healer.

      It’s generous of you to praise Nabakov. He had nothing but contempt for your sort of fascist-leaning politics and for Catallaxy which he demolished with his wit in one pithy sentence for a sizeable blog reading demographic. I often see it repeated across the reputable political blogs.

  10. I was glad to see Prof Quiggin said that the Naked Capitalism blog is essential reading. It’s definitely the best economics blog I’ve seen with a depth and range of posts, and fabulously informative and erudite commentary rivalled in Australia only by Quiggin’s own blog AFAIK.

  11. Hahahahahaha. Thats the spirit.

  12. One of the best things about politics, for tragics like you and me, is that it affords so many goddam bewdiful belly laughs.

    And I’ve never laughed so much (in only my own solitary presence) since I’ve been reading and commenting on political blogs, which are an embarrassment of riches on the intertubes.

    The unique thing about your blog for me is that it’s a safe haven. And that’s a very sweet place to be for the brief moments from the fray.

    Most recently I laughed out loud in that whole-body pleasurable way when I read of the dumping of Glen Milne from Insiders. Insiders is strictly chewing gum for the mind, but it was an important gig for the talentless twerp especially since his casual employment at The Australian was only on sufferance prior to his recent balls-up.

    Guffaws all round.

    ‘A dogge hath a day’.

  13. Always nice to have you here. You come here whenever you want to take five. I may actually try and write that thread above sometime soon.

  14. Oh you must. It’s a teaser of a header. But then you don’t even have to try to be the most fascinating blogger I’ve ever followed.

    I’m reading Melville’s short story “Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street”. You’d like it, if you haven’t read it. One thing I didn’t know: Melville had very little formal education and yet he wrote like a dream. And he worked for 19 years as a customs inspector for the City of New York. Unlike Clemens he wasn’t really recognised or recompensed in his own lifetime.

  15. I think the truism is that we’re dying from the moment we’re born. I’ve always been super aware of mortality – while simultaneously thinking I’m immortal. Athletes wear out their bodies, or parts of them, perhaps earlier than many sloths, and so do men and women at different stages for different biological reasons. In the end, though, if we live long enough, we pretty much implode. One organ breaks down after the other.

    There’s a great book by Sherwin Nuland, “How We Die” which I read around the time my parents died. Wanting to know the physics, it explained these and was thus sort of comforting, in an inexplicable way.

    http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Die-Reflections-Chapter/dp/0679742441

  16. My last comment went into moderation. You must be editing the post.

  17. That’s a fabulous post.

    Pain is a funny thing. There’s not necessarily a cause and effect mechanism at play. I may be physically injured, but I feel no pain. That brings us back to the consciousness conundrum. In some way we don’t understand we can obliterate pain or move it elsewhere. Referred pain is a mystery yet commonplace. And many people who have chronic pain, note it, but are not subjugated or deterred by it from living pleasurably.

    In short: we are a remarkable and mysterious species. But then all species are.

    Take a bow.

    How could you break a thumb swimming?

    • Thats when you are focusing on getting your technique right in a small pool and you forget about the fact that the pool will come to an end. Lucky it was my thumb and not my skull.

  18. Ok. I thought as much, Relays and pool work coming up against cement. Ouch, that must’ve hurt.

    I’m lucky I guess I’ve never been hurt dumped by waves (my preferred swimming environs is the ocean). One of my sisters broke her foot when dumped by waves in the Pacific Ocean (Burleigh Heads). But she must have stiffened up. The trick in the ocean always is to be loose and soft. And if you get caught in a rip just either float or freestyle parallel to the shore.

  19. Right. And remember the ocean has extra energizing and healing potential for whereas chlorinated water is typically low-pH, the ocean has a pH of around 8.2, and so your presence in it will lead to electrons naturally swarming into those parts of your body where they are needed.

    Old buggers who swim in the ocean a lot tend to be unnaturally healthy.

    • Yeah, that’s true though I didn’t know about the science until you explained it.

      I started swimming or at least being dunked in the ocean shallows since I was about three or four and spent much of my childhood and youth swimming all year round in the Pacific Ocean. I’m not an “old bugger”, by a long stretch, but I know what you mean. I’ve a next door neighbour in her 80s who I accompany sometime (since she drives and I don’t) to the tidal fenced pool at Cronulla in the early morn which is patronised almost exclusively with 65 plus lifelong swimmers who turn up every day come hail or shine all year round. A convivial bunch of folks with the inevitable mortal enmities which they like to elaborate on post swim.

    • There are no free electrons in sea water you idiot. HOW CAN YOU GET SOMETHING LIKE THIS SO ENTIRELY WRONG? ACIDS ARE ELECTRON-STEALERS (OR CONVERSELY “PROTON-DONORS” WHICH AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING.) WHEREAS ALKALINES ARE ELECTRON DONORS.

      • LOOK YOU FUCKWIT. IF ALKALINE DOESN’T MEAN ELECTRON DONOR, YOU TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS. IF A SOLUTION IS ALKALINE THAT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY OF THE SOLUTION. WHETHER OR NOT THE THEORISTS THINK THAT ELECTRONS PHYSICALLY MOVE OR NOT IS IMMATERIAL. IF ONE SOLUTION IS AT ONE CHARGE, AND ANOTHER IS AT ANOTHER, AND THEY COME INTO CONTACT WITH EACHOTHER THROUGH A SEMICONDUCTOR LIKE THE SKIN, THEN THE CHARGE DIFFERENCE WILL BE REDUCED. THE EFFECT WILL BE AS THOUGH ELECTRONS MOVED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

      • No this is all simply nonsense-talk. The fact that a sample of molecules has pH 8.2 means that there are electrons cut free and moving about. Its the same old chemistry-boy-101 nonsense. Trying to boil things down to an almost single molecule framework.

      • YOU IDIOT. THATS WHAT ALKALINE MEANS. ALKALINE MEANS ELECTRON-DONOR.

      • No all of that is wrong. You sound like you just started doing chemistry and got the Cliff notes version of the story.

      • NO LYING ON THIS SITE. MY QUALIFICATION FOR JUDGING ECONOMIC AND SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT IS SIMPLY BECAUSE I HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO SO. A CAPACITY WHICH YOU LACK. ULTIMATELY THE KNOWLEDGE TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS LIES IN EPISTEMOLOGY, THE SKILL IS IN REASON.

      • Poor old Mark Hill is so sex deprived that just writing the word “penis” – twice – obviously gives him a frisson.

        It’s okay Mark, no one cares a hoot what sexually excites you.

        If penises are your thang, go for it I say. They’re everywhere.

      • “just writing the word “penis” – twice – obviously gives him a frisson”

        DON’T BE SILLY MARK. I’LL LEAVE THE QUOTE. BUT THE REST OF IT IS JUST SILLINESS. NOW LOOK YOU YOUNG FOOL. JUST BECAUSE THE MALES AT CATALLAXY GO IN FOR THIS MALE GROUP WITCH-BURNING DEAL, DOESN’T MEAN YOU ARE MORALLY OKAY TO JOIN THEM. ONLY CL HAD A TEMPORARY PARTIAL EXCUSE, SINCE PHILOMENA TOOK A SWIPE AT HIM FIRST. YOU ACT LIKE A GENTLEMAN OR THATS JUST ONE MORE PUNCH IN THE GUTS THAT AWAITS YOU.

  20. Graeme, just wondering what the use of a vulgar term for part of the female anatomy has to do with old pain?

    • By the way you are a good sport for showing up so quickly after I gave you a hard time.

      • There was no point in replying to you. You needed to vent, so I didn’t interfere with the process.

  21. Well when a male person is referring to himself in a way that suggests that he may be getting old he sometimes says to himself “you fucking old CUNT”

    So its about a male referring to himself or to other old males.

    Gabrielle I just put “cunt” and “alkaline” in the google and I come up straight away number 2. There cannot be many people on the planet that can say as much.

    • Thank you for the explanation.

      Had a giggle over the google comment. You can be very funny at times.

  22. Graeme, people who habitually hang out with the most gross misogynists will often question the use of language by political opponents that they claim is sexist. As if they really cared.

    For my part, since I am a woman, and a feminist, I do genuinely ask: What is it about the word or meaning of “cunt” that you think it the most apt to use in the context in which you describe?

  23. Well its such a strong word. Such a repressed word. So there is that Lenny Bruce idea of taking the power out of the word. Then there is the self-inoculation part of the story. Since I can be busted for using bad words I may as well go the whole hog and run a years-long inoculation campaign. And then there is the possibility that I’ve gotten to like women so much that I’ve started to think about them too much upside-down, as-it-were.

  24. Yeah well I don’t really understand that. But it’s pretty unobjectionable, unlike its usage by Cataleprosy’s ‘JC’ et al.

    Unlike the twee-inclined, who are also the truly sexually repressed, I don’t think ‘cunt’ is a bad word. How could I? It describes something wonderfully pleasure giving to me and to others. And it’s allied physically to the most potent and essential part of human reproduction.

    It’s very revealing though I have to say that repressed women and misogynist men (not you Graeme) think the word and its physical manifestation, vulgar or an insult.

    I truly feel sorry for such people.

  25. Looks like you got your wish Graeme. Enjoy. I am. LOL.

  26. You held my lotus blossom
    In your lips and played with the
    Pistil. We took one piece of
    Magic rhinoceros horn
    And could not sleep all night long.
    All night the cock’s gorgeous crest
    stood erect. All night the bee
    Clung trembling to the flower
    Stamens. Oh my sweet perfumed
    Jewel! I will allow only
    My lord to possess my sacred
    Lotus pond, and every night
    You can make blossom in me
    Flowers of fire.

    …Huang O
    China C15

    • Chinese Sheilas are alright.

    • Chinese sheilas are MORE THAN “alright.”

      • Chinese women didn’t uniquely discover Eros. Or orgasms. The first known erotic poem was Sumerian. I’ve posted it here once. It had to have been written by a woman.

        True, feudal era Chinese and Japanese poetry is among the best ever erotica. But then the Arabs and Persians at the time were master/mistresses of it too.

        Among the English speaking nations the best erotic and romantic poetry (that we know of at least and imho) was written by the highly religious, and by men.

  27. In some way we don’t understand we can obliterate pain or move it elsewhere. Referred pain is a mystery yet

    Why is referred pain a mystery? I thought it was simply a kindling function of neurons in adjacent sensory cortices? Nor is obliterating pain so hard to understand. That probably relates to top down modulation of thalamic sensory gating.

  28. You may be right but what is “a kindling function” exactly? Its not a mantra posing as a solution is it?

  29. Kindling is a basic concept in neuroscience. It refers to the way neuronal signalling spreads across tissue. Very common, very important idea.

    • We are talking electrical signals?

      • Everyday neuronal transmission, you know polarisation blah blah blah. Neurons are not discrete signalling systems, the neurotransmitters do not just cross the synaptic membrane, they impact on neighbouring neurons as well.

  30. Geez the NSW budget was a damp squib re public service cutbacks.

  31. “Why is referred pain a mystery? I thought it was simply a kindling function of neurons in adjacent sensory cortices?”

    I meant it’s felt location and origin are not necessarily predictably mapped or linked or the exact mechanism understood or agreed upon. There are theories.

    But the broader related point I meant to make was that physical pain is not simply a mechanical affair of peripheral receptors and special centres in the brain. And pain’s intensity is not directly proportional to the extent of the injury which is its cause.

    Pain may be aggravated or inhibited by numerous psychological and even cultural factors. Which means therefore that to some extent at least pain is controllable. This is not a new discovery. Shock and adrenalin influence the perception of pain.

    And how do you account for psychological analgesia?

    In the mid 19th century James Esdaile and other British surgeons were performing major operations on patients anaesthetised by hypnotic suggestion. These were the pioneers in the use of hypnosis for surgical anaesthesia in the era immediately prior to the discovery of chloroform. Chloroform cut short this very promising development though these therapies are the subject of small scale ongoing research today. But a lot more could be done.

    Ideally, chemical and psychological methods or techniques could be used in conjunction. Are we condemned solely to rely for pain relief on intoxicants, stimulants, sedatives – drugs – etc? Who says so?

    And then there’s hypnopaedia (sleep learning), suggestibility, including autosuggestion, autoconditioning. Under proper conditions we know these things can work. And what about the known pain relieving effects of placebos?

    Many mysteries remain and I think they are related to the consciousness conundrum.

    http://www.apa.org/research/action/hypnosis.aspx

    • One big reason we have trouble understanding pain is that pain is not just about the nervous system, it often involves an immunological component. In fact referred pain can arise from microglial produced inflammatory mediators driving DRG neurons. That is why backlash can result in pain with no obvious physiological correlates. The experience of pain is being driven by neuronal transmission arising from these inflammatory mediators. That is a big reason why many pain killers are anti-inflammatory mediators.

      Recent research on anesthetic drugs is very worrying because it has been demonstrated these drugs can induce the product beta amyloid. The Chinese do use acupuncture for some operations but are now largely adopting Western style medicine. I don’t care what people were doing in the 19th century, too far away and the data too unreliable, you’ll have to provide some current evidence for me to buy into those stories. I know the experience of pain is variable, everyone knows. At present we cannot answer these questions because we have no working model of nervous system function. Ha! Given the research of the last 6 months alone one could argue we don’t have a valid working model of discrete neuronal function.

      In relation to consciousness the biggest problem may well be the presumption of many that only primates and a few mammals have consciousness. I don’t accept that, I think consciousness is much more widespread than we generally believe.

  32. The immunological and inflammatory aspects and flow on effects from injuries or traumatic events is amazing. The sciatica nerve when awry or damaged can cause awful even life threatening lymphodema and cellutis skin infections. Anti-inflammatories the usual treatment are frightening medications as their side effects can be very bad.

    I know what you mean about the 19th century but the point is that there could be greater emphasis today placed on these therapies used and taught in the home and in the education system, on children, schooling individuals on a mass scale in alternative means of pain control or modification allied with other forms of knowledge about anatomy, diet, exercise, etc. But then that doesn’t really fit in with the modern medical paradigm and business model, the power and reach of the pharma industry or the quick fix ohsession and expectation.

  33. “In relation to consciousness the biggest problem may well be the presumption of many that only primates and a few mammals have consciousness. I don’t accept that, I think consciousness is much more widespread than we generally believe.”

    I agree with you but then the most important influences on my “worldview” have always been the sensual experience of all that exists in nature and the insights of literature, philosophy and art across all cultures.

  34. on these therapies used and taught in the home and in the education system, on children, schooling individuals on a mass scale in alternative means of pain control or modification allied with other forms of knowledge about anatomy, diet, exercise, etc. But then that doesn’t really fit in with the modern medical paradigm and business model, the power and reach of the pharma industry or the quick fix ohsession and expectation.

    Good point and as I like to say modern medicine is TOO reductive, it too often looks to molecular solutions when other avenues are available.

    • Excellent posts John. You make sure you hang out.

  35. from “Love’s Progress” by John Donne

    But in attaining this desired place
    How much they err that set out at the face.
    The hair a forest is of ambushes,
    Of springs, snares, fetters and manacles;
    The brow becalms us when ’tis smooth and plain,
    And when ’tis wrinkled shipwrecks us again—
    Smooth, ’tis a paradise where we would have
    Immortal stay, and wrinkled ’tis our grave.
    The nose (like to the first meridian) runs
    Not ‘twixt an East and West, but ‘twixt two suns;
    It leaves a cheek, a rosy hemisphere,
    On either side, and then directs us where
    Upon the Islands Fortunate we fall,
    (Not faint Canaries, but Ambrosial)
    Her swelling lips; to which when we are come,
    We anchor there, and think ourselves at home,
    For they seem all: there Sirens’ songs, and there
    Wise Delphic oracles do fill the ear;
    There in a creek where chosen pearls do swell,
    The remora, her cleaving tongue doth dwell.
    These, and the glorious promontory, her chin,
    O’erpassed, and the straight Hellespont between
    The Sestos and Abydos of her breasts,
    (Not of two lovers, but two loves the nests)
    Succeeds a boundless sea, but yet thine eye
    Some island moles may scattered there descry;
    And sailing towards her India, in that way
    Shall at her fair Atlantic navel stay;
    Though thence the current be thy pilot made,
    Yet ere thou be where thou wouldst be embayed
    Thou shalt upon another forest set,
    Where many shipwreck and no further get.
    When thou art there, consider what this chase
    Misspent by thy beginning at the face.

  36. As we discussed, some interesting alternatives here, Graeme

    http://www.natural-health-restored.com/natural-toothpaste.html

  37. We have to have massive spending cuts to provide the resources for

    1. New employment directly.

    2. Strategic tax cuts to also supply new employment.

    On the State level the spending cuts ought to both put the states in surplus and create enough room for them to say goodbye to the payroll tax for all time. Such a combination would start people hiring in a hurry right away. Also changes to corporate law to bring down bigshot salaries in an organic way without central mandating would be helpful.

    Fundamentally you want the resources going to business renovation. Which typically means more machinery. You want the rules and background policy such that as much resources are headed in that direction.

    On the monetary side you never ever want to drop interest rates. When we say “drop interest rates” we really mean that the reserve bank increase the subsidy to the financial sector. We need the money supply growth picture and the business revenues growth picture to make a determination whether stimulus is warranted. It doesn’t look warranted because GDP has just surged. But if monetary stimulus is warranted it has to come from new cash injection. Never from dropping reserve bank interest.

    To kick such stimulus off you might inject the new cash while raising the reserve banks rate up and up. You want to take the reserve bank subsidy out of the picture, unless it means a van to show up from the mint, at loan shark rates, just to stop a run on the banks, and eventually you would want to even remove this more honest type of bailout.

    Just on bailouts: They didn’t used to mean what they mean now. A bailout didn’t mean thieving from the community to give to the banks, so they can pay themselves bonuses. It used to mean a fast truck coming directly from the mint to supply a burst of cash on loan. Hopefully with a punitive interest charge in the PUBLIC (non-bank) INTEREST). Nothing to do with a subsidy for these weasels and welfare recipients.

  38. The state government is thinking of selling off our second biggest wharf, for maybe 2 billion. I find this deeply disturbing.

    1. The real reason they want to do this is because they are too lame to close down government departments. It would reduce these guys hashing things up so badly were they only to be able to privatize from a position of healthy surplus.

    2. They haven’t put a situation in place wherein we may expect an oversupply of wharf services. That is to say tidy profits will not lead to wharves springing up all over the place. So as of necessity they will be creating a cronyist industry.

    3. What is the deal where the taxpayer pays to get these things built, and then the bigshots get to run them? Why cannot the bigshots build a wharf if they want one.

    4. The wharf is being sold by taxeaters. Its not there’s to sell so they had better have a good reason for it.

    5. The next step is for the crony-owners to want to sell off the wharf to the communist party for a tidy profit. We can expect people around here to call this communist nationalisation “free enterprise.”

    • NO SORRY. YOU WERE LYING AGAIN. GOING ON WHAT THE PAPER SAID, THERE WERE NO EXTRA TAXES TO ANYONE IN THE ANTHONY ALBANESE PLAN. ITS PROBABLY THE BEST PLAN ANYONE HAS COME UP WITH IN RECENT HISTORY IF IT TURNS OUT TO BE HOW THE AUSTRALIAN DESCRIBED IT.

      YOU’VE NEVER UNDERSTOOD ECNOMICS MARK. NEITHER DID KEYNES. AND HE WOUND UP BEING AN ECONOMIST AS WELL.

      • NO IT ISN’T. BUT IT WOULDN’T MATTER WHAT MOTIVATED THE POLICY. THE REALITY IS THAT ITS WEALTH-CREATING POLICY.

      • NO YOU ARE WRONG. ITS CLEARLY THE BEST WEALTH-CREATING MICRO-ECONOMIC POLICY WE’VE YET SEEN IN AUSTRALIA. LEARN ECONOMICS.

      • SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT CREDENTIALS. YOU HAVE NO ECONOMIC CREDENTIALS SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS.

      • IF YOU CANNOT EVEN COMPREHEND MY POSITION ON MATTERS EITHER STOP TYPING OR ASK AN HONEST QUESTION.

  39. LOOK YOU DOPE. ALKALINE MEANS ELECTRON DONOR. IF IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT YOU TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS.

    • NO LYING HERE. IF ALKALINE DOESN’T MEAN ELECTRON-DONOR, YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS.

      • IF YOU FIND SOME OTHER CAUSE FOR ALKALINITY OTHER THAN ELECTRON-DONATION OR ITS FACSIMILE, IN THE TRANSFER OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY …….

        WELL DO LET ME KNOW HEY CUNT?

  40. Andrew Albanese announces excellent micro-economic reform. The Labor party will rise again:

    “AUSTRALIAN ship operators could pay zero company tax and bypass Labor’s Fair Work Act when working international trade routes under reforms the government will fast-track to salvage the crisis-hit local shipping industry.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/shipping-industry-escapes-company-tax-and-fair-work-act/story-fn59niix-1226132700462

  41. Catallaxy has nothing to contribute to the sum of human knowledge Birdflaps/JC/Birdlab.

    It is a site of angry hate filled stupid men who are obsessed with the Left, women they’ll never enjoy and Muslims.

    Which is fitting. LOL.

    • Send this toad (JC) to the drain, Graeme.

      Thanks.

    • Mark Hill, you really should hit the books, the classics of world literature and philosophy for starters. Your fundamental problem is that you’re a bad communicator and lack judgement. This is because you’re uneducated, uncultured, illiterate, un-read, ill-bred and an ethical and moral sewer.

      And obviously woman-less. Poor dear.

      I hope this helps.

  42. To my knowledge, Mr Bird, esq. is a chick magnet extraordinaire and always has been.

    And, simply put, he has what women, especially hot, smart women want.

    In his heyday, and before he settled down, I’m reliably told Graeme used to beat women off with a stick (metaaphorically speaking). He tried his best to pleasure as many as he could, gentleman that he is, but there are only so many hours in the day for a fella who likes to work out his body and mind in additional ways, earn a living and so forth.

  43. NY Times September 10, 2011
    Is Manufacturing Falling Off the Radar?
    By LOUIS UCHITELLE

    PELLA, Iowa

    JUST outside this prairie town, seven vast buildings, each painted brick red, are lined up along a highway bordered by grain fields. These single-story structures have no smokestacks or any other indication that they are, in fact, very busy factories.

    Three shifts of workers produce machines that bale hay, dig trenches, reduce tree branches to wood chips, grind stumps into sawdust, and drill tunnels to run electric wires and pipes underground. Most were the creations of Gary Vermeer, a farmer, tinkerer and inventor who died two years ago, at the age of 91.

    The company he founded bears his name, but for all its American roots, the Vermeer Corporation put its newest factory — and the wealth that goes with it — not here but in the capital of China. And Mr. Vermeer’s daughter, Mary Vermeer Andringa, the chief executive, presides over a manufacturing operation that relies increasingly on government support.

    As President Obama urges Congress to enact a package of tax cuts and new government spending intended to revive growth and create jobs, one crucial corner of the American economy — manufacturing — has largely fallen off Washington’s radar screen.

    Vermeer earns nearly one-third of its annual revenue from exports — counting on the United States government for trade agreements, favorable currency arrangements and even white-knuckle diplomacy to make exports happen. In China, that wasn’t enough. For several years, it had been running into competition from Chinese manufacturers of horizontal drills, supported by their government in the form of free land, tax breaks, cheap credit and other subsidies. With its share of the market falling precipitously, Vermeer in 2008 opened a plant in Beijing, taking a Chinese partner and drawing help for the venture from the Chinese. “I am a very big proponent of making the United States a great place from which to export,” said Ms. Andringa, 61, who is also chairwoman of the National Association of Manufacturers. But she added: “If we wanted to stay in the Chinese market, we needed to be there. That was the reality.”

    Manufacturing is not simply a market activity, especially not in the 21st century: manufacturers rely increasingly on governments, here and abroad, to prosper and expand. Vermeer, family owned, thrives with such help, as do big multinationals like Dow Chemical. In each region of the world, multinationals produce much of what they sell locally. European and Asian governments support this strategy, and the American government is cautiously getting into this game. The president, in his speech on Thursday, nodded in this direction.

    “We’re going to make sure the next generation of manufacturing takes root not in China or Europe, but right here, in the United States of America,” he told a joint session of Congress.

    Vermeer tries to march to that edict, employing 140 engineers, 7 percent of its staff, in a constant effort to upgrade the various machines it exports. But it runs into an obstacle. For all the desire to make things in America, manufacturers increasingly rely on imported components, diluting the label “Made in America,” and Vermeer is no exception.

    “We would prefer to buy everything in the United States, but some of our transmissions come from Europe,” Ms. Andringa says. “They are not made here in the sizes and capacities that we need.”

    In Dow Chemical’s case, thanks to a $141 million federal grant, roof shingles that generate solar power are rolling out of a pilot plant near Dow’s headquarters in Midland, Mich., and a full-scale factory is under construction nearby. The government is also paying nearly half the cost of building a $362 million Dow plant in the Midland area, whose “clean” rooms will soon produce batteries for electric cars.

    “An advanced manufacturing policy is what this country must have,” says Andrew N. Liveris, the chairman and chief executive of Dow Chemical, arguing, in effect, that manufacturing needs government support to expand its dwindling share of the nation’s economy. That is particularly so when demand for new products like solar shingles and batteries is not yet enough to justify the investment. (Three solar companies recently filed for bankruptcy.)

    Mr. Liveris, 57, himself a chemical engineer and co-chairman of President Obama’s newly formed Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, a group of outside advisers, would even “pick winners” — that is, select some manufacturers for continuing support. “I would not let free markets rule without also addressing what I want manufacturing to be 20 or 30 years from now,” he says.

    The Obama administration hasn’t tried to formulate policy that far into the future. But, last year, the president called for a doubling of exports by 2015 — which would require total factory output in America to rise several times faster than it has in recent years. One way to accomplish that would be to have multinationals repatriate some of their overseas production — which Mr. Liveris, for one, is not planning to do.

    Despite its goals for manufacturing, the administration lacks an explicit plan for achieving them. “The United States today is alone among industrial powers in not having a strategy or even a procedure for thinking through what must be done when it comes to manufacturing,” says Thomas A. Kochan, an industrial economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    MANUFACTURING’S muscle helped make the United States a world power, but its contribution to national income is dwindling. And while corporate leaders like Mr. Liveris and Jeffrey R. Immelt of General Electric — who is chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness — are beginning to express concern over manufacturing’s relative decline, the multinationals they command have contributed to the problem by gradually shifting production abroad. About half of Dow Chemical’s $58 billion in revenue last year came from overseas operations.

    A tipping point may already have been reached. Manufacturing’s contribution to gross domestic product — roughly equivalent to national income — has declined to just 11.7 percent last year from as much as 28 percent in the 1950s, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In this century, the 20-percent-or-more club draws its members mainly from Asia and Europe.

    It isn’t that fewer autos or plastics or steel products or electronics are coming out of American factories. Quite the contrary: output continues to rise, reaching $1.95 trillion last year. But other sectors of the economy have grown faster in recent decades, and that dynamic has reduced manufacturing’s share.

    In particular, the finance, insurance and real estate sectors — driven especially by investment banking and home sales — rose from less than 12 percent of G.D.P. in the mid-1950s to more than 20 percent before the onset of the financial crisis, and even now remain nearly that high. In China, in sharp contrast, manufacturing’s share of national output is more than 25 percent. While the United States has a far larger economy — $14 trillion in G.D.P. versus China’s $6 trillion — it has less factory production.

    Exactly when China took the lead, ousting the United States from a position held for more than a century, isn’t easy to pin down. The bureau says it may have come in 2009, when Chinese manufacturers generated $1.7 trillion of “value added,” versus America’s $1.6 trillion. (When a $100 sheet of steel, for example, is shaped into a $125 auto fender, the value added is $25.)

    Relying on World Bank figures, some economists suggest that China moved into first place in manufacturing last year. Others say that based on measurements of actual purchasing power, the moment has not yet arrived but will come soon.

    It may seem remarkable that America’s fall — or impending fall — from first place in manufacturing isn’t generating all that many headlines, certainly not when compared with the controversies over the national debt or persistent unemployment. One reason may be that the nation’s political leaders don’t see manufacturing as a problem. Put another way, they don’t necessarily regard making an engine, a computer or even a pair of scissors as having as much value as investment banking or retailing or a useful Web site.

    “You have a culture within the elites of both political parties that says manufacturing does not matter, and industrial policy will do more harm than good,” says Ronil Hira, an assistant professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

    But the stark reality of manufacturing’s shrinking share of national output is beginning to force these questions: Does manufacturing matter? And is the financial sector, which rose as manufacturing declined, an adequate substitute? The financial crisis may have answered that last question with an emphatic no. Certainly, many experts maintain that manufacturing’s contribution to the national health is significantly underappreciated.

    Recovery from the recession, they say, would not be so sluggish if there were still enough manufacturers to jump-start an upturn by revving up production and rehiring en masse at the first signs of better times. What’s more, each new manufacturing job generates five others in the economy. Shrinking the relative size of manufacturing has undermined that multiplier effect.

    The damage doesn’t end there. The intractable trade deficit is attributable in part to manufacturing’s shaken status. And in many areas, craftsmanship in America has been eroding. Forty percent of the nation’s engineers work in manufacturing, for example, and that profession’s numbers have been declining. That is a particular problem because innovation often originates in manufacturing, frequently in research centers near factories, which aid in the creation of products and the tweaking of them on assembly lines.

    As multinationals place factories abroad, they are putting research centers near them, with as-yet-undetermined consequences. At the very least, this trend challenges the view that the United States has the best scientists and research centers and is thus the research-and-development pacesetter.

    “If you let manufacturing go, over time that will have a negative gravitational pull on innovation,” says Ron Bloom, who served as the administration’s senior counselor for manufacturing. He resigned in August and has not yet been replaced.

    In fact, as American multinationals become ever more global, they are placing sophisticated research centers near their overseas factories, partly to keep R.& D. close to assembly lines and partly because of enticing government incentives.

    From China, Dow Chemical now exports products invented at its research center near Shanghai. “Overseas,” Mr. Liveris said, “I get tax incentives, and I get incentives to go to certain locations where they offer us utilities, infrastructure and land. I get access to human capital. I get all sorts of support to help train that human capital.”

    Against that backdrop, he and a few other top executives of multinationals exhort the Obama administration and Congress to grant incentives and subsidies intended to halt the 60-year decline in manufacturing’s contribution to national income. Mr. Liveris recently published a book on the subject.

    He says vigorous government support, like the subsidies that Dow receives for its solar roof shingle operation and the electric battery factory, might eventually halt manufacturing’s slide. But he adds that his company and others will not embark on a reverse migration, a significant “in-shoring” of what has already moved abroad. Too many consumers are concentrated today in Asia and Europe.

    “We put things overseas,” Mr. Liveris says, “because markets were growing there and we wanted to be close to them, and that will never change.”

    THE skyline at the Dow Chemical complex in Midland is made up of smokestacks, giant pipes and multistory factory buildings. The site where Herbert Dow first extracted brine from underground wells to make bleach is organized now as 32 production units employing 3,600 people and spread over three square miles. Out of this complex come products like brake fluid, plastic tubing, paint, battery components and solar roof shingles.

    Much of what is made at these factories is sold in the United States, and more could come off the assembly lines if domestic demand rose or exports grew, says Earl Shipp, a Dow Chemical vice president, during a tour of the sprawling complex. Dow is now a significant exporter from the United States, but it is also a significant exporter from its factories overseas.

    Consider China. “We have launched several products sold around the world that were designed and invented in China and are now made in China,” Mr. Liveris says. He cites as examples a protective coating with properties that neutralize the corrosive effects of formaldehyde and an epoxy-based laminate used in printed circuit boards.

    The solar roof shingles being produced in Midland, by contrast, are intended only for America. That is partly because roofs on single-family homes in this country slope differently from those elsewhere, according to Jane M. Palmieri, general manager of Dow Solar Solutions.

    Still, Dow’s research in Midland led to the invention of a layered roof shingle that converts sunlight into enough electricity to heat water for a home. If there were enough demand in, say, Europe, Dow might initially export a European version from the United States.

    “At some point, as demand rose, we would go overseas,” Ms. Palmieri says. “We would want to keep the production facility in good proximity to our end-use market.”

    The battery factory nearing completion a few streets away is a different tale. It is to produce enough batteries each year to operate 30,000 fully electric cars. But the batteries aren’t likely to be exported immediately. The reason is that Dow is manufacturing them in Midland in a joint venture with other companies, licensing the technology from the Kokam Company in South Korea. Elsewhere in the world, Korean, European, Chinese and Japanese companies are already making and selling similar batteries, using different technologies.

    “Battery production went overseas when electronics did, and we are only now bringing it back,” says David Pankratz, the Dow vice president of operations for the joint venture, adding that the government pushed for this to happen.

    That sally into industrial policy, some economists say, is like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped — the horse in this case being America’s possession of the world’s biggest mass market. That ended in the late 20th century with the rise of millions of consumers in Asia and Europe with ample disposable income or access to credit.

    The upshot is that governments in these markets pile on subsidies to gain or keep as much production as possible. Whirlpool, for example, makes most of its microwave ovens in southeastern China, with help from local subsidies.

    When companies engaged in this kind of strategy in the 1980s, there was often much more criticism than today.

    “The reason you no longer get much of an outcry over this exodus has to do mainly with jobs,” says Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for American Progress. “Less than 12 percent of the American work force is in manufacturing today, down from 30 percent in the 1970s. So there isn’t the same level of public concern.”

  44. Martk Hill sezs

    “….in fact, we just stroll up to the wimmin’s collective at the local uni and say “you’ll do” and they lie back and think of baking pies.”

    This is from the LDP’s Policy on Women?

    No wonder you’ve no women members and your vote is shite.

    • Sorry, that’s MARK HILL. Founding member and leading light of the LDP.

      Never heard of it?

      Know you know why.

    • Who’s FDB?

      See there you go again. You don’t know the meaning of the word “object” in this context and so once again you fail to understand what I wrote and in your response to communicate anything sensible or true.

      Hit the classics, you loser.

      GO!

    • Wow Jinmaro, you’re very well read……

      YES SHE IS. FINALLY YOU GET SOMETHING RIGHT. I’LL ALERT THE MEDIA OF COURSE. THIS IS A WOMAN THAT CAN QUOTE ME ANCIENT CHINESE POETRY TO SUIT THE MOOD I’M IN.

  45. “Wow you’re very well read for a male nurse.”

    What a snob. You think nurses aren’t well read? Is this another LDP policy?

    You have no idea what I do for a living or my profession or my education and it’s driving you even madder than you already are.

    I said: “you fail to understand what I wrote ”

    Mark Dill said. “This is bullshit. You got caught out. “enjoy a woman” ah yeah dude plenty of feminists refer to women as cans of beer or steak.

    You’re a virgin aren’t you. LOL. Perhaps it’s time to do something about the acne and the misogyny. A whole world of sensual pleasure awaits. Just ask Graeme.

    Men enjoy women and women enjoy men – sexually. It’s got nothing to do with feminism you imbecile.

    Ask Daddy about it, he must have done it at least once.

    • I SUSPECT SHE IS RIGHT MARK. YOU ARE CLEARLY A HARD WORKER. LACKING ANY NATIVE INTELLIGENCE YOU’VE STILL MANAGED TO GET A PHD. AND I HAPPEN TO KNOW YOU WERE POOR THROUGH-OUT YOUR STUDENT YEARS. SO WHILE I SEE THAT YOU HAVE SOME VIRTUES IN TERMS OF HARD WORK AND SO FORTH, I THINK SHE HAS NAILED IT THAT YOU ARE ONE OF THE OLDEST VIRGINS IN AUSTRALIA.

      THERE IS ALWAYS NEXT YEAR. YOU HAVE AN INCOME NOW. BE COOL. DON’T LET IT WORRY YOU TO MUCH. MY ADVICE IS TO TAKE A TRIP TO BURMA. SPREAD IT AROUND A BIT. TEN YEARS AGO I WOULD HAVE SAID THAILAND. BUT THE GIRLS THERE ARE OFTEN MIDDLE CLASS NOW, AND YOU NEED TO GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER WITH BOTH PROFESSIONALS AND AMATEURS.

      • Jeez, you’re batshit crazy about me, Mark Dill. I do have that effect on all sorts of men.

        But, sorry, emotionally unintelligent, incoherent, uncultured, violent, humourless, women-hating, fascist-leaning, homophobic, misanthropic, slobs like you are not my type. Funny about that, eh?

        Again, if you want to attract women – and you seem desperate to do so – ask Graeme for tactical advice. He’s a master at it. But unlike Graeme, you’d have to pretend real hard not to be any of the above. Which might get you one date. Max.

      • YOU IDIOT. YOU DON’T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT THIS WOMAN.

      • “Mark Hill, you really should hit the books, the classics of world literature and philosophy for starters. Your fundamental problem is that you’re a bad communicator and lack judgement. This is because you’re uneducated, uncultured, illiterate, un-read, ill-bred and an ethical and moral sewer.

        And obviously woman-less. Poor dear.

        I hope this helps.”

        SHE’S RIGHT MARK. AND YOU HAVE THE WORK ETHIC TO TAKE HER UP ON HER HELPFUL ADVICE. WHEN I STUDIED ECONOMICS THE SUBJECT WAS RICH-YET-KEYNESIAN-BIASED. THE MONETARISTS CAME ALONG, HELPED TEMPORARILY CURE THE KEYNESIAN BIAS, AND YET THEY NARROWED THINGS DOWN TO CRAPPY STATIC-EQUILIBRIUM MODELS. WE HAD ABOUT A 30% CORRECTION IN TERMS OF BIAS, BUT OVER TIME WE KEPT LOSING RICHNESS AND POWERS OF OBSERVATION.

        YOU NEED TO GET THREE-DIMENSIONAL MARK. IT WILL TAKE YOU A LONG TIME. JUST DO AS PHILOMENA SAYS. AND DO AS I SAY TOO AND HAVE A LOT OF FUN WITH A LOT OF BURMESE GIRLS.

        YOU CAN NEVER BE A SERIOUS ECONOMIST BY READING PAPERS ON STATIC-EQUILIBRIUM MODELS AND STATISTICAL STUDIES WHERE THE APRIORI REASONING IS ALL BUT BRUSHED OUT OF THEM.

        THE ONLY WORTHWHILE ECONOMISTS ARE THE NEAR-RENAISSANCE-MEN.

        I SHIT YOU NOT. THATS WHY FRIEDMAN WAS GOOD, AND SOWELL WAS BETTER, AND ROTHBARD WAS SUPERB, AND MISES WAS SO FANTASTICALLY SUPERB IT HURT, AND WHY REISMAN TOOK MATTERS TO AN WHOLE NEW TECHNICAL LEVEL.

        ALL THESE GUYS WERE WELL-ROUNDED SCHOLARS. YOU’VE GOT TWENTY YEARS OF HARD WORK, FOLLOWING PHILOMENAS ADVICE BEFORE ANY OF US COULD EVER TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.

        BUT YOU HAVE A GOOD WORK ETHIC. SO DO NOT DESPAIR.

    • Mark Hill sezs to me:

      “Gee “love”, thanks for the vomit inducing nightmares”.

      I guess that was your first thought upon birth and you’re doomed to endlessly repeat.

      My condolences.

      But, if I may, a trivial point. Do you like JC vomit inside your self or do you manage to expel it?

  46. For the love of Christ on the cross and the examples of zen-cool that he left with us Mark. Reisman is the gold standard in economics. He has taken the science further than it has ever been taken before.

    • HE’S THE GOLD STANDARD MARK. LEARN ECONOMICS. BUT SINCE YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF DOING SO YET, FOLLOW PHILOMENA’S ADVICE FOR MENTAL RECONSTRUCTION.

  47. Great minds think alike.

    NY Times September 10, 2011
    Is Manufacturing Falling Off the Radar?
    By LOUIS UCHITELLE

    PELLA, Iowa

    JUST outside this prairie town, seven vast buildings, each painted brick red, are lined up along a highway bordered by grain fields. These single-story structures have no smokestacks or any other indication that they are, in fact, very busy factories.

    Three shifts of workers produce machines that bale hay, dig trenches, reduce tree branches to wood chips, grind stumps into sawdust, and drill tunnels to run electric wires and pipes underground. Most were the creations of Gary Vermeer, a farmer, tinkerer and inventor who died two years ago, at the age of 91.

    The company he founded bears his name, but for all its American roots, the Vermeer Corporation put its newest factory — and the wealth that goes with it — not here but in the capital of China. And Mr. Vermeer’s daughter, Mary Vermeer Andringa, the chief executive, presides over a manufacturing operation that relies increasingly on government support.

    As President Obama urges Congress to enact a package of tax cuts and new government spending intended to revive growth and create jobs, one crucial corner of the American economy — manufacturing — has largely fallen off Washington’s radar screen.

    Vermeer earns nearly one-third of its annual revenue from exports — counting on the United States government for trade agreements, favorable currency arrangements and even white-knuckle diplomacy to make exports happen. In China, that wasn’t enough. For several years, it had been running into competition from Chinese manufacturers of horizontal drills, supported by their government in the form of free land, tax breaks, cheap credit and other subsidies. With its share of the market falling precipitously, Vermeer in 2008 opened a plant in Beijing, taking a Chinese partner and drawing help for the venture from the Chinese. “I am a very big proponent of making the United States a great place from which to export,” said Ms. Andringa, 61, who is also chairwoman of the National Association of Manufacturers. But she added: “If we wanted to stay in the Chinese market, we needed to be there. That was the reality.”

    Manufacturing is not simply a market activity, especially not in the 21st century: manufacturers rely increasingly on governments, here and abroad, to prosper and expand. Vermeer, family owned, thrives with such help, as do big multinationals like Dow Chemical. In each region of the world, multinationals produce much of what they sell locally. European and Asian governments support this strategy, and the American government is cautiously getting into this game. The president, in his speech on Thursday, nodded in this direction.

    “We’re going to make sure the next generation of manufacturing takes root not in China or Europe, but right here, in the United States of America,” he told a joint session of Congress.

    Vermeer tries to march to that edict, employing 140 engineers, 7 percent of its staff, in a constant effort to upgrade the various machines it exports. But it runs into an obstacle. For all the desire to make things in America, manufacturers increasingly rely on imported components, diluting the label “Made in America,” and Vermeer is no exception.

    “We would prefer to buy everything in the United States, but some of our transmissions come from Europe,” Ms. Andringa says. “They are not made here in the sizes and capacities that we need.”

    In Dow Chemical’s case, thanks to a $141 million federal grant, roof shingles that generate solar power are rolling out of a pilot plant near Dow’s headquarters in Midland, Mich., and a full-scale factory is under construction nearby. The government is also paying nearly half the cost of building a $362 million Dow plant in the Midland area, whose “clean” rooms will soon produce batteries for electric cars.

    “An advanced manufacturing policy is what this country must have,” says Andrew N. Liveris, the chairman and chief executive of Dow Chemical, arguing, in effect, that manufacturing needs government support to expand its dwindling share of the nation’s economy. That is particularly so when demand for new products like solar shingles and batteries is not yet enough to justify the investment. (Three solar companies recently filed for bankruptcy.)

    Mr. Liveris, 57, himself a chemical engineer and co-chairman of President Obama’s newly formed Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, a group of outside advisers, would even “pick winners” — that is, select some manufacturers for continuing support. “I would not let free markets rule without also addressing what I want manufacturing to be 20 or 30 years from now,” he says.

    The Obama administration hasn’t tried to formulate policy that far into the future. But, last year, the president called for a doubling of exports by 2015 — which would require total factory output in America to rise several times faster than it has in recent years. One way to accomplish that would be to have multinationals repatriate some of their overseas production — which Mr. Liveris, for one, is not planning to do.

    Despite its goals for manufacturing, the administration lacks an explicit plan for achieving them. “The United States today is alone among industrial powers in not having a strategy or even a procedure for thinking through what must be done when it comes to manufacturing,” says Thomas A. Kochan, an industrial economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    MANUFACTURING’S muscle helped make the United States a world power, but its contribution to national income is dwindling. And while corporate leaders like Mr. Liveris and Jeffrey R. Immelt of General Electric — who is chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness — are beginning to express concern over manufacturing’s relative decline, the multinationals they command have contributed to the problem by gradually shifting production abroad. About half of Dow Chemical’s $58 billion in revenue last year came from overseas operations.

    A tipping point may already have been reached. Manufacturing’s contribution to gross domestic product — roughly equivalent to national income — has declined to just 11.7 percent last year from as much as 28 percent in the 1950s, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In this century, the 20-percent-or-more club draws its members mainly from Asia and Europe.

    It isn’t that fewer autos or plastics or steel products or electronics are coming out of American factories. Quite the contrary: output continues to rise, reaching $1.95 trillion last year. But other sectors of the economy have grown faster in recent decades, and that dynamic has reduced manufacturing’s share.

    In particular, the finance, insurance and real estate sectors — driven especially by investment banking and home sales — rose from less than 12 percent of G.D.P. in the mid-1950s to more than 20 percent before the onset of the financial crisis, and even now remain nearly that high. In China, in sharp contrast, manufacturing’s share of national output is more than 25 percent. While the United States has a far larger economy — $14 trillion in G.D.P. versus China’s $6 trillion — it has less factory production.

    Exactly when China took the lead, ousting the United States from a position held for more than a century, isn’t easy to pin down. The bureau says it may have come in 2009, when Chinese manufacturers generated $1.7 trillion of “value added,” versus America’s $1.6 trillion. (When a $100 sheet of steel, for example, is shaped into a $125 auto fender, the value added is $25.)

    Relying on World Bank figures, some economists suggest that China moved into first place in manufacturing last year. Others say that based on measurements of actual purchasing power, the moment has not yet arrived but will come soon.

    It may seem remarkable that America’s fall — or impending fall — from first place in manufacturing isn’t generating all that many headlines, certainly not when compared with the controversies over the national debt or persistent unemployment. One reason may be that the nation’s political leaders don’t see manufacturing as a problem. Put another way, they don’t necessarily regard making an engine, a computer or even a pair of scissors as having as much value as investment banking or retailing or a useful Web site.

    “You have a culture within the elites of both political parties that says manufacturing does not matter, and industrial policy will do more harm than good,” says Ronil Hira, an assistant professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

    But the stark reality of manufacturing’s shrinking share of national output is beginning to force these questions: Does manufacturing matter? And is the financial sector, which rose as manufacturing declined, an adequate substitute? The financial crisis may have answered that last question with an emphatic no. Certainly, many experts maintain that manufacturing’s contribution to the national health is significantly underappreciated.

    Recovery from the recession, they say, would not be so sluggish if there were still enough manufacturers to jump-start an upturn by revving up production and rehiring en masse at the first signs of better times. What’s more, each new manufacturing job generates five others in the economy. Shrinking the relative size of manufacturing has undermined that multiplier effect.

    The damage doesn’t end there. The intractable trade deficit is attributable in part to manufacturing’s shaken status. And in many areas, craftsmanship in America has been eroding. Forty percent of the nation’s engineers work in manufacturing, for example, and that profession’s numbers have been declining. That is a particular problem because innovation often originates in manufacturing, frequently in research centers near factories, which aid in the creation of products and the tweaking of them on assembly lines.

    As multinationals place factories abroad, they are putting research centers near them, with as-yet-undetermined consequences. At the very least, this trend challenges the view that the United States has the best scientists and research centers and is thus the research-and-development pacesetter.

    “If you let manufacturing go, over time that will have a negative gravitational pull on innovation,” says Ron Bloom, who served as the administration’s senior counselor for manufacturing. He resigned in August and has not yet been replaced.

    In fact, as American multinationals become ever more global, they are placing sophisticated research centers near their overseas factories, partly to keep R.& D. close to assembly lines and partly because of enticing government incentives.

    From China, Dow Chemical now exports products invented at its research center near Shanghai. “Overseas,” Mr. Liveris said, “I get tax incentives, and I get incentives to go to certain locations where they offer us utilities, infrastructure and land. I get access to human capital. I get all sorts of support to help train that human capital.”

    Against that backdrop, he and a few other top executives of multinationals exhort the Obama administration and Congress to grant incentives and subsidies intended to halt the 60-year decline in manufacturing’s contribution to national income. Mr. Liveris recently published a book on the subject.

    He says vigorous government support, like the subsidies that Dow receives for its solar roof shingle operation and the electric battery factory, might eventually halt manufacturing’s slide. But he adds that his company and others will not embark on a reverse migration, a significant “in-shoring” of what has already moved abroad. Too many consumers are concentrated today in Asia and Europe.

    “We put things overseas,” Mr. Liveris says, “because markets were growing there and we wanted to be close to them, and that will never change.”

    THE skyline at the Dow Chemical complex in Midland is made up of smokestacks, giant pipes and multistory factory buildings. The site where Herbert Dow first extracted brine from underground wells to make bleach is organized now as 32 production units employing 3,600 people and spread over three square miles. Out of this complex come products like brake fluid, plastic tubing, paint, battery components and solar roof shingles.

    Much of what is made at these factories is sold in the United States, and more could come off the assembly lines if domestic demand rose or exports grew, says Earl Shipp, a Dow Chemical vice president, during a tour of the sprawling complex. Dow is now a significant exporter from the United States, but it is also a significant exporter from its factories overseas.

    Consider China. “We have launched several products sold around the world that were designed and invented in China and are now made in China,” Mr. Liveris says. He cites as examples a protective coating with properties that neutralize the corrosive effects of formaldehyde and an epoxy-based laminate used in printed circuit boards.

    The solar roof shingles being produced in Midland, by contrast, are intended only for America. That is partly because roofs on single-family homes in this country slope differently from those elsewhere, according to Jane M. Palmieri, general manager of Dow Solar Solutions.

    Still, Dow’s research in Midland led to the invention of a layered roof shingle that converts sunlight into enough electricity to heat water for a home. If there were enough demand in, say, Europe, Dow might initially export a European version from the United States.

    “At some point, as demand rose, we would go overseas,” Ms. Palmieri says. “We would want to keep the production facility in good proximity to our end-use market.”

    The battery factory nearing completion a few streets away is a different tale. It is to produce enough batteries each year to operate 30,000 fully electric cars. But the batteries aren’t likely to be exported immediately. The reason is that Dow is manufacturing them in Midland in a joint venture with other companies, licensing the technology from the Kokam Company in South Korea. Elsewhere in the world, Korean, European, Chinese and Japanese companies are already making and selling similar batteries, using different technologies.

    “Battery production went overseas when electronics did, and we are only now bringing it back,” says David Pankratz, the Dow vice president of operations for the joint venture, adding that the government pushed for this to happen.

    That sally into industrial policy, some economists say, is like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped — the horse in this case being America’s possession of the world’s biggest mass market. That ended in the late 20th century with the rise of millions of consumers in Asia and Europe with ample disposable income or access to credit.

    The upshot is that governments in these markets pile on subsidies to gain or keep as much production as possible. Whirlpool, for example, makes most of its microwave ovens in southeastern China, with help from local subsidies.

    When companies engaged in this kind of strategy in the 1980s, there was often much more criticism than today.

    “The reason you no longer get much of an outcry over this exodus has to do mainly with jobs,” says Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for American Progress. “Less than 12 percent of the American work force is in manufacturing today, down from 30 percent in the 1970s. So there isn’t the same level of public concern.”

  48. Graeme, I dig your insistence on Renaissance Man (sic) thingy.

    Economics is a soft science and comparable to more than anything else sociology and psychology.

    But you’re never going to be any good at any of these disciplines or fields of knowledge unless you’re a well-rounded human being thoroughly grounded in the the literary and philosophical classics.

    All of ideological history attests to this fact.

    • History is not gene theory.

  49. Actually, most of the poems I quote aren’t on the net. You have to do the hard yards to know world poetry. And it ain’t the hard yards if you love it.

  50. Cell DNA

    I am the singular
    in free fall.
    I and my doubles
    carry it all:

    life’s slim volume
    spirally bound.
    It’s what I’m about,
    it’s what I’m around.

    Presence and hungers
    imbue a sap mote
    with the world as they spin it,
    I teach it by rote

    but its every command
    was once a miscue
    that something rose to,
    Presence and freedom

    re-wording, re-beading
    strains on a strand
    making I and I more different
    than we could stand.

    Les Murray

  51. Economics is a soft science and comparable to more than anything else sociology and psychology.

    But you’re never going to be any good at any of these disciplines or fields of knowledge unless you’re a well-rounded human being thoroughly grounded in the the literary and philosophical classics.

    These types of generalisations have no place. A person can be an expert at a particular discipline and provide valuable insights irrespective of their background knowledge. You are creating a standard that suits your predilections but it stands in contradiction to the known facts. What you ask is far too much, even if Hayek himself stated that economists must also be anthropologists the simple truth is that in today’s knowledge world no-one can be a Renaissance Man. It is simply impossible to be a genuine expert across so many fields of knowledge. Popper nailed it: “We may differ in what we know but in our infinite ignorance we are all equal.”

    Over and above that there is the obvious levels of analysis error because literary and philosophical classics are behavior. You would be better off studying the behavior of the people who produced those classics than studying those classics. But that is no avail because they are lost in time. That is, psycho history is bunkum.

  52. These types of generalisations have no place. A person can be an expert at a particular discipline and provide valuable insights irrespective of their background knowledge. You are creating a standard that suits your predilections but it stands in contradiction to the known facts. What you ask is far too much, even if Hayek himself stated that economists must also be anthropologists the simple truth is that in today’s knowledge world no-one can be a Renaissance Man. It is simply impossible to be a genuine expert across so many fields of knowledge. Popper nailed it: “We may differ in what we know but in our infinite ignorance we are all equal.”

    Over and above that there is the obvious levels of analysis error because literary and philosophical classics are behavior. You would be better off studying the behavior of the people who produced those classics than studying those classics. But that is no avail because they are lost in time. That is, psycho history is bunkum.

    I think “genuine expert” in anything is an oxymoron. The more you learn about anything the more you discover you don’t know. Specialisation is often deforming and constricting. It can stupefy the practitioner or knowledge holder.

    The universe and all it contains is not only “queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose”.

    Science and literature exist on a continuum of epistemological reality. Literature is also philosophy is also science. They’re not identical, but they all both point to the unity of being that physics has confirmed. You need to draw on all three to have a hope of understanding much at all or being self and other aware in the deepest possible way.

    Heisenberg stressed that our relationship as observers to what we observe shapes and mediates the limits of our knowledge. There are invisible and intangible things underlying appearances. They are not objects of immediate experience and we can’t even describe them very well if at all. Literature is idiographic. The best of literature and philosophy is the whole truth, or the “super-truth”.

    There is no obvious correspondence between an artist’s work and their personal behaviour. The work may be sublime, the behaviour anything from silly, criminal to insane. Conversely the behaviour may be blameless and the work uninteresting to downright bad. Artistic merit has nothing to with any other type of merit.

  53. Ahaa, its pleasant conversation concerning this post at this place at this webpage,
    I have read all that, so at this time me also commenting at this place.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: