Opinions and/or experience with Autozone Airtex fuel pump for '89 Toyota?

jim beam wrote:

\
>
> again, cite your source. that's not what i've seen.

Try the bureau of labor statistics.

On 12/17/2010 11:29 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
> \
>>
>> again, cite your source. that's not what i've seen.
>
> Try the bureau of labor statistics.

i'm asking a serious question and that is just a brush-off.

when you say "Total manufacturing output has grown", where do you get
that from? we agree on productivity per person, which the department of
labor will quote you, but where does your "manufacturing output" number
come from?


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 12/17/2010 10:48 AM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-12-17, jim > wrote:
>> On 12/17/2010 09:21 AM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2010-12-17, jim > wrote:
>>>
>>>> looking forward, as tektronix, raytheon, timken, g.m. ship their r&d and
>>>> manufacturing to china, as boeing ship r&d and manufacturing to china,
>>>> those are not the loss of low end jobs here, those are the loss of our
>>>> strategic superpower status and military independence. "productivity"
>>>> doesn't enter into it.
>>>
>>> Don't forget all the immigrants that 'must' be brought in to do the R&D
>>> work that remains in the USA.
>>>
>>
>> that is a whole different issue because our lower education system
>> regularly fails our own. 95% of math phd's produced in our universities
>> go to non-nationals. that is, by any measure, absolutely ridiculous.
>> the fact that we /need/ to import is a symptom, not a cause.
>
> The condition of the school system is part of an overall agenda that
> comes right out of the foundations, thinktanks, policy groups, etc.

juxtapose california and texas. texas used to be in the tank and now is
one of the leading states. california used to be on top and is now in
the tank. that is no accident.


>
> The lack of people going into that work I believe is because not only is
> the educational requirement and work more difficult/demanding than other
> fields, but it's less rewarded (over all, career wise) than other fields
> talented people can go into and looked down upon culturally in many
> aspects. Why beat your head into the wall trying to make stuff when
> finance, stock/commodity trading, etc and so are so much more rewarded?

indeed - i know that situation personally. but it's undermining our
long term economy /and/ military security. the only thing that's kept
us afloat in that regard are the old farts - but they are rapidly
retiring. once they're gone, there's no one to replace them and we're
stuffed.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 12/17/2010 12:43 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 12/17/2010 11:29 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>> \
>>>>
>>>> again, cite your source. that's not what i've seen.
>>>
>>> Try the bureau of labor statistics.
>>
>> i'm asking a serious question and that is just a brush-off.
>
> Look at Table 2 Output by major industry sector
> http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art4full.pdf

that doesn't answer the question. not even remotely.

you said:

"US manufacturing is still the largest in the world
and has been growing continuously ever since WW2."

i asked you three times to back that up. the first two times you simply
ignored the request. and this time, your cite is ridiculously off-base.
not only was that report written in 2005 using "chain-weighted" block
stats, it purports to look forwards a whole decade using only one decade
of history!!! no technical statistician would put their name to garbage
like that, let alone publish it - it would end their career. and i
think those projections like "The following manufacturing subsectors are
expected to lead the pace of output growth: computer and electronic
product manufacturing (12.7 percent); plastics and rubber products
manufacturing (3.7 percent)..." when in fact we've seen both sectors
desert domestic production simply illustrate the point.


>
>
>
>
>
>> when you say "Total manufacturing output has grown", where do you get
>> that from? we agree on productivity per person, which the department of
>> labor will quote you, but where does your "manufacturing output" number
>> come from?
>>
>> --
>> nomina rutrum rutrum


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 12/17/2010 12:43 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/17/2010 11:29 AM, jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> jim beam wrote:
> >>>
> >>> \
> >>>>
> >>>> again, cite your source. that's not what i've seen.
> >>>
> >>> Try the bureau of labor statistics.
> >>
> >> i'm asking a serious question and that is just a brush-off.
> >
> > Look at Table 2 Output by major industry sector
> > http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art4full.pdf
>
> that doesn't answer the question. not even remotely.
>
> you said:
>
> "US manufacturing is still the largest in the world
> and has been growing continuously ever since WW2."
>
> i asked you three times to back that up. the first two times you simply
> ignored the request. and this time, your cite is ridiculously off-base.
> not only was that report written in 2005 using "chain-weighted" block
> stats, it purports to look forwards a whole decade using only one decade
> of history!!! no technical statistician would put their name to garbage
> like that, let alone publish it - it would end their career. and i
> think those projections like "The following manufacturing subsectors are
> expected to lead the pace of output growth: computer and electronic
> product manufacturing (12.7 percent); plastics and rubber products
> manufacturing (3.7 percent)..." when in fact we've seen both sectors
> desert domestic production simply illustrate the point.


I had no expectation directing you to the bureau of labor statistics
data would do anything but baffle you, but it did shut you up for a
couple of days.

Their predictions appear to fairly accurate. In the case of computer and
electronics they predict a decline in jobs in that sector and at the
same time an increase in output. You have got it into your head that is
an impossibility. Oh well........

On 12/18/2010 03:16 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 12/17/2010 12:43 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/17/2010 11:29 AM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> \
>>>>>>
>>>>>> again, cite your source. that's not what i've seen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try the bureau of labor statistics.
>>>>
>>>> i'm asking a serious question and that is just a brush-off.
>>>
>>> Look at Table 2 Output by major industry sector
>>> http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art4full.pdf
>>
>> that doesn't answer the question. not even remotely.
>>
>> you said:
>>
>> "US manufacturing is still the largest in the world
>> and has been growing continuously ever since WW2."
>>
>> i asked you three times to back that up. the first two times you simply
>> ignored the request. and this time, your cite is ridiculously off-base.
>> not only was that report written in 2005 using "chain-weighted" block
>> stats, it purports to look forwards a whole decade using only one decade
>> of history!!! no technical statistician would put their name to garbage
>> like that, let alone publish it - it would end their career. and i
>> think those projections like "The following manufacturing subsectors are
>> expected to lead the pace of output growth: computer and electronic
>> product manufacturing (12.7 percent); plastics and rubber products
>> manufacturing (3.7 percent)..." when in fact we've seen both sectors
>> desert domestic production simply illustrate the point.
>
>
> I had no expectation directing you to the bureau of labor statistics
> data would do anything but baffle you, but it did shut you up for a
> couple of days.

er, if you think that a single gross aggregated decade gives you a
statistical basis on which to predict a future decade, you're either
delusional or retarded.


>
> Their predictions appear to fairly accurate.

only if you live on a plant where domestic computer and electronic
product manufacturing having /not/ increased by the predicted 12.7
percent can somehow perversely be seen as being accurate. and that's
not any planet i'm familiar with.


> In the case of computer and
> electronics they predict a decline in jobs in that sector and at the
> same time an increase in output. You have got it into your head that is
> an impossibility. Oh well........

that is a spectacular statement - their predicting an increase in
domestic production [which is NOT productivity per employee, the only
figure you seem to be able to talk about], then being proven wrong, is
by any normal measure seen as a failure. your apparent inability to
differentiate "production" from "productivity" can be categorized in the
same way.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:

>
> er, if you think that a single gross aggregated decade gives you a
> statistical basis on which to predict a future decade, you're either
> delusional or retarded.

You are the one one who believes that not me.

On 12/18/2010 04:02 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>> er, if you think that a single gross aggregated decade gives you a
>> statistical basis on which to predict a future decade, you're either
>> delusional or retarded.
>
> You are the one one who believes that not me.

apparently you're too ****ing stupid to comprehend what that statement
means.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum