History of bulk electronic components suppliers

(sci.electronics.components dropped)

This war isn't lost, even now. Not by a long shot. The enemy is but few--he claims 20k, but cut that in half or less. Nor is he militarily effective. We dominate the country. He snipes and takes potshots at our troops, but accomplishes little. For each soldier we lose, he loses many, from his few. He can't afford it. Nor has he popular support--the support of the people--for they are his quarry, his prey.

But to win you have to present a single, unified, determined front to your enemy, which the Democrats prevent, indeed, actively subvert.

Uniting, the press has to report successes, not just costs (they always report the US's total losses; where's the enemy-tally?). But then the press has a viewpoint to promote, and is eager to see the President humiliated on any account, which is reason enough to oppose him, regardless of the endeavor.

And so, back to the costs of Liberalism (capital "L", meaning "people who proclaim themselves liberals, but aren't"), I add the cost of the war.

So, you asked when Liberals last cost society a billion dollars, and I've listed a number of their real-world trillion-dollar money-sinks, massively mis-managed, producing little of the intended benefit.

To that list we could add the Homeland pseudo-Security nonsense.

That's my gripe, that's the harm wrought by well-intentioned actions not well thought out.

Best, James Arthur

You never had enough soldiers and have fewer now. He keeps adding to the supply.

Just like Vietnam. You still had to bail.

Just like Vietnam. You still had to bail.

Right. Nothing to do with going in based on lies and on promises that could never be kept.

"Mission Accomplished" - if the mission was a never ending war of attrition.

Why not? Is there else anything useful it can do?

... We dominate the country. ...

And that is just plain wrong. Anyone who can't see that is either blind or a fool, and those who know it but won't admit it are just plain evil.

It's the quest for world domination that's taking America straight to Hell in a handbasket.

Thanks, Rich

Silly. We have no colonies, not even in Europe where we had absolute military domination not long ago. We pay market prices for everything. We export aid, wealth, and jobs to places that, frankly, need them a lot worse than we do. Puerto Rico and other affiliates can vote to become fully independent if they want to. The US doesn't want to dominate the world, we want to spread wealth and democracy. What's wrong with that?

I suppose amoral is the new "moral."

John

Irrelevant, obviously. All wars involve lies, pretexts, and promises.

You're not thinking logically. These have nothing to do with the logistics, or the relative military merits.

Surely you'd not claim war and winning more difficult now by the fact that our troops occupy and control the terrain, have bases, have support by land, air, and sea, etc., as compared to before, with Saddam in charge, a standing army opposed, Republican Guard, etc?

But you avoid the greater issue, which was that I indeed have showed that false "Liberalism" has cost society thousands-fold more in dollars and in human misery than your boogeyman--evil corporations-- ever did.

Neither is good. But let's keep things in perspective. We have to, if we're to make things better.

Best wishes, James Arthur

Right. That's why you've bombed your way across chunks of Central and South America not to mention the rest of the world.

Funny how you always wind up crushing democracies and shifting wealth to yourselves.

Describing Noam Chomsky as a "scholar" is enough to make a mockery of that site. I bet you buy his books, with the money you don't spend on actually helping people.

John

Bullshit. Nothing good has ever come but with the support of liberals.

Noam Chomsky. G W Bush. There's a contest -NOT!

I'll stick to Chomsky - at least he can chew and watch TV at the same time.

Of course liberals have done good things, it's "Liberals" (socialists: people who demonize honest laborers, take their goods, and distribute them to others) I spoke of. "Equity" is their rationale.

Promoting class warfare--the notion that people can/should be divided into classes and that one class deserves another's goods-- isn't liberal, at least not to me. My theory is not that the rich have stolen, but that, by and large, the poor haven't risen to their potential.

Thus, and for reasons of inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and more, I don't agree with the redistribution programs. I listed several--care to defend any of them?

Best wishes, James Arthur

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sorry, I meant that description of false liberals to read: "Liberals" (socialists who demonize honest laborers, take

Best, James Arthur

The rich have two major functions:

1. To be productive, to build things on a large scale.

1. To divert a portion of society's resources (read "money" if you will) from consumption to investment. Somebody's got to do it.

and one minor one

1. To be an example.

John

I'd counter & propose ideally that rich people became so by virtue of their being productive, and by virtue of carefully saving and applying the proceeds. That description covers the majority of my acquaintence, with a minority who owe theirs to luck, looks, or mischief.

I'll grant you the save and invest function, but note that everyone can save and invest, not just tycoons. Scores of tiny capital caches could add up to significant and great power nationally, if only they existed. Witness the benefit of micro-cap loans in Africa and Asia.

And being an example, to me, means to teach others the road to freedom, to help them realize their potential, which is very important indeed.

It's not all that hard: Go to school. Work. Get married before having kids. Save, don't waste. Invest.

With regards, James Arthur

Why? Granted, I did it (if only barely do), but why is it important?

robert

2) Children really do need two parents.

For Keith's reasons, to be sure, namely, it's great for the kids. But, there are even more basic, practical reasons _for the parents_ when it comes to "how to avoid being poor": it's more efficient. It costs more to maintain two households than one. It's as easy to shop & cook for two or three people as for one. There are other economies as well. So getting married helps, and most especially if you're going to have kids.

As the old saying goes, "Two can live as cheaply as one."

If you can save 10%, that's the difference between living on the ragged edge of existence, and being able to retire in 10-15 years.

And lots of regular folks just don't appreciate that, don't understand that you can easily spend your _retirement_ on fast food, soda pop, and cable TV, etc.

Best, James Arthur

Some do. Some become rich by selling drugs, or scamming corporations, or suing doctors, or just getting into the middle of transactions. Even then, they usually divert resources into investment. In that they squander resources on personal indulgences (estates, planes, whatever) as opposed to investing, the wealth acts counter to the public good.

Which is why we sould tax consumption but not income.

Scores of tiny caches is still tiny. In developed countries, the other big pool of investment is insurance and retirement plans. In poor countries, where local enterprise is sorely needed, even the small investments are great.

It's not hard. But too many people, at all income levels, spend more than they make on crap and it doesn't make them happy.

John

Married people are healthier, happier, wealthier, live longer, and have more sex than singles.

I discovered the secret of success: marry a woman who has a good job.

John