PDA

View Full Version : The day after ...



LWW
01-20-2011, 05:11 PM
YESTERDAY: (http://www.suntimes.com/news/3387474-420/story.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON (AP) A senior administration official says China will announce deals Wednesday to purchase $45 billion in U.S. exports, including a $19 billion agreement to buy 200 Boeing airplanes.

The official says the deal will create 235,000 jobs in the U.S.</div></div>

TODAY: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110120/bs_afp/usaerospacemilitarycompanycutsboeing_2011012017435 4)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NEW YORK (AFP) US aerospace giant Boeing said Thursday it will cut about 1,100 jobs over the next two years as it slows production of its C-17 military transport aircraft. </div></div>

LWW

Sev
01-20-2011, 07:31 PM
HAHAHHAAHAHHA!!!!

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 08:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> YESTERDAY: (http://www.suntimes.com/news/3387474-420/story.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON (AP) A senior administration official says China will announce deals Wednesday to purchase $45 billion in U.S. exports, including a $19 billion agreement to buy 200 Boeing airplanes.

The official says the deal will create 235,000 jobs in the U.S.</div></div>

TODAY: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110120/bs_afp/usaerospacemilitarycompanycutsboeing_2011012017435 4)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NEW YORK (AFP) US aerospace giant Boeing said Thursday it will cut about 1,100 jobs over the next two years as it slows production of its C-17 military transport aircraft. </div></div>

LWW </div></div>

And, so? Your point is?

Stretch
01-20-2011, 09:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> YESTERDAY: (http://www.suntimes.com/news/3387474-420/story.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON (AP) A senior administration official says China will announce deals Wednesday to purchase $45 billion in U.S. exports, including a $19 billion agreement to buy 200 Boeing airplanes.

The official says the deal will create 235,000 jobs in the U.S.</div></div>

TODAY: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110120/bs_afp/usaerospacemilitarycompanycutsboeing_2011012017435 4)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NEW YORK (AFP) US aerospace giant Boeing said Thursday it will cut about 1,100 jobs over the next two years as it slows production of its C-17 military transport aircraft. </div></div>

LWW </div></div>

And, so? Your point is? </div></div>

He makes a point of not making a point. He needs lots of wiggle room.

Expect ridicule, arragance, and a dizzying display of BS to muddy the water. Just a friendly heads up. St.

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 10:02 PM
I have seen no signs of that. Are you sure???

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif

Sev
01-20-2011, 10:02 PM
Irony.

Stretch
01-20-2011, 10:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Irony. </div></div>

Tragedy St.

Soflasnapper
01-21-2011, 02:11 AM
Anime.

LWW
01-21-2011, 04:05 AM
The point is that anything from the regime is never what it is initially claimed to be.

The point is the lapdog media pimped the 235K+ jobs with mighty force ... while the cuts story I found by accident looking for something else.

The point is the O-cult will 100.0% of the time look at something like this and say "WHAT'S THE POINT?"

LWW

Sev
01-21-2011, 07:21 AM
Just like Gibbs saying yesterday Obama's position has always been for military tribunals.

eg8r
01-21-2011, 09:43 AM
Yeah, on this one I don't get the point. They are two different programs and this happens all the time. Just because China is purchasing airplanes doesn't mean Boeing needs to keep excess staff on board.

eg8r

Sev
01-21-2011, 09:54 AM
The country is still in the tank.
We are seeing a stock market recovery but not a labor and manufacturing recovery.
Existing home sales were down for 2010 4.6% the lowest in 13 years. We are still seeing over 400,000 unemployment filings a week.

Its not good.

eg8r
01-21-2011, 10:15 AM
But what does that have to do with the subject? lww was pointing out China would be buying more planes from Boeing and then pointing out that a completely different division of Boeing would be laying people off. They are apples and oranges. If you have enough people staffed on one program and another program loses funding would you double staff your one profitable program? Or would you do what is required by the shareholders and keep the program profitable?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-21-2011, 12:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But what does that have to do with the subject? lww was pointing out China would be buying more planes from Boeing and then pointing out that a completely different division of Boeing would be laying people off. They are apples and oranges. If you have enough people staffed on one program and another program loses funding would you double staff your one profitable program? Or would you do what is required by the shareholders and keep the program profitable?

eg8r </div></div>

Actually, those are the same programs or divisions.

The announcement was that the Chinese would be buying 200 C-17s. This production staff layoff is in Boeing's C-17 production line.

Here's what it's about. The military contracted to buy 200+ C-17s. They did that, and announced about 2006 or so that they were through, thank you very much-- great plane, but we now have all we need. In the meantime, Boeing got maybe a dozen more bought by the Pentagon, and now they're really not going to buy any more.

Boeing had a few orders here and there, but not enough to sustain their production line AND their contracted suppliers. So, if China will buy 200, like the original Pentagon contract, Boeing should be able to keep that production facility humming with work, keep all the workers, and maybe add more.

My guess is that either China's purchase will be phased in very gradually, at a rate that cannot sustain full production and employment, or that they will not start the purchases until sometime down the road (and so Boeing has to economize in the meantime to reduce the losses until the production order comes through).

Sev
01-21-2011, 05:35 PM
I can roll with that.

LWW
01-22-2011, 03:44 AM
My take is that you will swallow whatever story the regime puts on the spoon for you.

Add 238,000 jobs one day is the claim ... layoff 1,00 is the reality the next day.

Conflict?

Not once you become adept at doublethink I guess.

We have always been at war with Eurasia haven't we.

LWW

Sev
01-22-2011, 08:58 AM
Wait till the price of jet fuel spikes and flying becomes prohibitive due to ticket price.
Passenger trains may actually have a chance of making a come back.

Soflasnapper
01-22-2011, 03:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My take is that you will swallow whatever story the regime puts on the spoon for you.

Add 238,000 jobs one day is the claim ... layoff 1,00 is the reality the next day.

Conflict?

Not once you become adept at doublethink I guess.

We have always been at war with Eurasia haven't we.

LWW </div></div>

Hey, I backed you up and said you were right, that the shutdown in the C-17 line was the same project the Chinese were supposedly contracting for. You can't even take agreement without an attack???

I guess you cannot understand the logistics and business side of delaying the ramp up of employment, and in the meantime, saving on personnel expenses, until phased-in contracted orders hit a sufficient volume?

Obviously, the projection of 238,000 new jobs is in the fullness of time, eventually as the deals reach fruition and ultimately completion, and certainly not day one after the announcement.

I agree with skepticism, but barking-mad-dog nihilism and aggressive Tourette's style opposition to each and every fact is just as likely to lead to a faulty conclusion as naive acceptance of official stories.

LWW
01-22-2011, 03:45 PM
BOEING (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing#Employment_numbers) has 68,341 total employees in the defense division.

Anyone who believed this contract would add 235,000 new jobs will believe anything.

Facts. They are such stubborn things.

LWW

Sev
01-23-2011, 10:10 AM
It could add another 235,000 paper shufflers in the government.
Hey you never know.

Soflasnapper
01-23-2011, 03:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> BOEING (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing#Employment_numbers) has 68,341 total employees in the defense division.

Anyone who believed this contract would add 235,000 new jobs will believe anything.

Facts. They are such stubborn things.

LWW </div></div>

So stubborn I guess they won't talk to you and make your acquaintance?

Nobody said the 235,000 jobs would be added only in Boeing's contract. Plenty of other companies were at that meeting with the Chinese leader, and it is the total of all the deals that would amount to this jobs impact. Even the Boeing contract impact would be greater than its effect on Boeing employment alone, as there are many supplier companies feeding into the production line whose employment would also be affected.

LWW
01-24-2011, 03:14 AM
You are so close to an epiphany grasshopper.

You see, actually it did say that as quoted. Within the same article it changed one word ... from "WOULD" to "COULD" and then morphed into 235K new jobs for the entire contract.

By the end of the day, the regime's talking heads were on American Pravda explaining that it would ... and by the end of the interview could ... "save or create" 235K jobs By the end of the next day the prediction was -1,200 jobs in the hole.

This regime, with it's lapdog media and slavishly submissive cult following can tell the same story 4 completely different ways and then have a reality that is opposed to all of them ... and the O-cult will nod their heads in collective unison while accepting all 4 stories from the regime as "TRUTH: and then argue with the observable reality.

LWW

Sev
01-24-2011, 07:03 AM
It all in the name of keeping plausible deniability.

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 11:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are so close to an epiphany grasshopper.

You see, actually it did say that as quoted. Within the same article it changed one word ... from "WOULD" to "COULD" and then morphed into 235K new jobs for the entire contract.

By the end of the day, the regime's talking heads were on American Pravda explaining that it would ... and by the end of the interview could ... "save or create" 235K jobs By the end of the next day the prediction was -1,200 jobs in the hole.

This regime, with it's lapdog media and slavishly submissive cult following can tell the same story 4 completely different ways and then have a reality that is opposed to all of them ... and the O-cult will nod their heads in collective unison while accepting all 4 stories from the regime as "TRUTH: and then argue with the observable reality.

LWW </div></div>

That's a reading comprehension problem. You could (AND you would) read it that way, but it's absurd (which provides the clue that you should re-read it for the obvious different meaning that is also supported by those words).

LWW
01-25-2011, 04:02 AM
Here's the ultimate questions ... what are the 235,000 jobs? Where will they be? When will they be? Why isn't the lapdog media or the O-cult asking this?

Instead, they are slavishly nodding their collectivist heads in unison at whatever "TRUTH" the regime spouts.

If they had said 235.912,837,465,019,827,365,444 jobs would be created ... the reactions would have been identical, blind obedience.

LWW

JohnnyD
01-25-2011, 12:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the ultimate questions ... what are the 235,000 jobs? Where will they be? When will they be? Why isn't the lapdog media or the O-cult asking this?

Instead, they are slavishly nodding their collectivist heads in unison at whatever "TRUTH" the regime spouts.

If they had said 235.912,837,465,019,827,365,444 jobs would be created ... the reactions would have been identical, blind obedience.

LWW </div></div> You are spot on as usual professor.The sheep are all comfy and ready in their tambo and are awaiting the pedagogue.

Soflasnapper
01-25-2011, 12:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JohnnyD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the ultimate questions ... what are the 235,000 jobs? Where will they be? When will they be? Why isn't the lapdog media or the O-cult asking this?

Instead, they are slavishly nodding their collectivist heads in unison at whatever "TRUTH" the regime spouts.

If they had said 235.912,837,465,019,827,365,444 jobs would be created ... the reactions would have been identical, blind obedience.

LWW </div></div> You are spot on as usual professor.The sheep are all comfy and ready in their tambo and are awaiting the pedagogue. </div></div>

Baaaaa!