A practice forbidden by the hosts and managers of the Cafe:

"deliberately driving other participants to distraction with dishonest, dissembling and disingenuous posting"

This place has so few posters that anyone paying shills to post here isn't getting much bang for their buck.

Richard, I never have claimed that there is such a thing as *clean
coal* but relatively we have cleaned up coal some small amount.
Washing coal is one way to lower its environmental impact. The process
is rather
complex but by washing we lower transportation energy to move the
stuff and lower smokestack pollutants where the coal is used since the
efficiency of the end users becomes higher so less coal is needed to
produce the same work. Not that this doesn't come at a price such as
the more localized impact of toxic holding slug ponds.

You might ask the Senator why he is conflating his increased market
share through the purchase of his machines with more total jobs rather
than just the increased employment in his plant;-)

>A practice forbidden by the hosts and managers of the Cafe: "deliberately driving other participants to distraction with dishonest, dissembling and disingenuous posting"<

Your judgement is cloudy. I consider your misguided apporach to labor a complete distraction to honest discussion. But since you'd rather make stupid claims of forbidden cafe practices, I suggest you can't really hold up your annoyning pronouncements, anyway.

>Work is leisure time?!? Care to try that again? I don't think it came out the way you meant it to.<

No, it came out correctly. Richard worked part time, quit, took unemployment, worked part time, quit, took unemployment. His grasp of reality is limited by his lack of contribution.

>> Work is leisure time?!? Care to try that again? I don't think it came out the way you meant it to. < <

<<< No, it came out correctly >>>

Whoever doesn’t know, or pretends not to know, the difference between work and leisure time needs to have his head examined and his argumentation ignored.

<<< Richard worked part time, quit, took unemployment, worked part time, quit, took unemployment. His grasp of reality is limited by his lack of contribution. >>>

My grasp of reality was enhanced by the benefit of havng so much leisure time, which I freely admit I took from the system. I took it so that I would be able to thoroughly delve into all this stuff I’ve been talking about in the Café for the past decade and at OpEdNews for the past 4 years or so. It's my drug. Addicts have been known to steal in order to feed their habit.

If enough people had followed my example, there would have been a revolution by now and we'd all be living in a much better, and much less wasteful society.

Omlettes are not made without breaking a few eggs.

<<< Richard worked part time, quit, took unemployment, worked part time, quit, took unemployment. His grasp of reality is limited by his lack of contribution. >>>

My grasp of reality was enhanced by how much leisure time I took from the system in order to be able to thoroughly delve into all this stuff I’ve been talking about in the Café for the past decade and at OpEdNews for the past 4 years or so.

<<< You might ask the Senator why he is conflating his increased market share through the purchase of his machines with more total jobs rather than just the increased employment in his plant >>>

Tonu, I tried to rewrite your question to make it more clear, before presenting it to the Senator, and realized that I didn’t really understand your question.

<<< This place has so few posters that anyone paying shills to post here isn't getting much bang for their buck. >>>

Egads I can’t stand bald truth like that, Treetop. For God sake, man, let me nurse my illusions! ;^}

Richard -- the Senator is claiming his machines create jobs when the
jobs they have created is likely at the expense of more others losing
theirs. Unless he can show his particular niche market/industry is
growing faster than the exchange of jobs and/or creates more jobs
elsewhere he hasn't net increased jobs, well paying or not  --- all he
has done is redistributed the fewer who are employed. He hasn't yet
illustrated either a micro or macro overall gain so he is passing
ideological wind.

That's clear.  Thanks.

I don't have to show anything. We added 6 employees this year and will probably add 10 more next year. We are in the process of buying a building, close to doubling our floor spaces. This will also increase our productivity bringing the need for the additional people.

You clowns have to show this isn't net increasing jobs.

Increased productivity brings in the need for new workers _only_ if consumer/customer _demand_ increases proportionately.

But to the extent that demand and consumption increase for most all companies, so does pollution, resource exhaustion and global warming.

So, it would be better for everyone (except the greedy stockholders and business owners) if the workweek, work month and work year, could all be shortened by law, thereby providing more leisure time for all. It would also be better for the environment, our great great grandchildren, and the health of the planet.

Getting a bit touchy, are we Senator {515}?

Since some are not accepting your personal anecdote as a case of proving the rule must be troubling.

A famous showman that employed more than a few clowns had some pithy comments: There is a sucker born every minute; Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

I'm happy for you and your company and your employees but in no way does your success 'prove' a thing other than you have been gaining market share.

>Since some are not accepting your personal anecdote as a case of proving the rule must be troubling.<

Not at all. What you haven't shown is what you claim.

You're wrong about that my dear fellow. And I predict you would look foolish (illogical) trying to prove otherwise.

Please, Richard. It's not wise to say who would or would not look foolish, especially if you are taking part in the discussion.

I join Tonu in being happy for you and your company and your employees, but as Tonu pointed out, and to which you have failed to respond, in no way does your success 'prove' anything other than that you have been gaining market share.

If you have a rebuttal to this, let's hear it.

>in no way does your success 'prove' anything other than that you have been gaining market share.<

It doesn't "prove" that at all. The market may be growing.

There are other factors, too. Perhaps you can think of some, if you care to try.

I've added 6, will be adding 10. Nothing you've suggested indicates they are not net gains, gains from productivity increases.

If there were not a growing market for your produce, producivity increases would be irrelevant and would be no basis for hiring additional personnel. If you are trying to get us to believe that you believe otherwise, this is just more evidence that your main purpose here is to jerk us around and play games that you somehow find amusing.

Since increased productivity means producing the same amount of product with less labor, productivity increases alone can't explain why you are in a position hire more people.

Productivity gain resulting in price reduction resulting in greater sales could.

Steve knows that, of course. It's economics 101. He's just pretending he doesn't because he gets a kick from fucking up the discussion.

More likely, yesdeer has no idea what the word "productivity" means. I've seen no reason to assume he knows anything.

"Productivity" means you guys haven't had any for decades.

I guess you're right, Treetop!

1. The quality of being productive.
2. Economics The rate at which goods or services are produced
especially output per unit of labor.
3. Ecology The rate at which radiant energy is used by producers to
form organic substances as food for consumers.

"Output per unit of labor."

Unless demand increases, there is no way that an increase in "output perunit of labor" allows you to hire new workers. Just the opposite. To produce the same output, you need less labor, not more.

Obvious points, except to certain right-leaning business owners among us.