🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Blair wrote:
> 
> >> Jim Blair:
> >> >>
> >> >> And I was not generalizing  about "everywhere", just about the USA.
> >>
> >> Peter Lawrence <peterl@netlink.com.au> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >A couple of points here.
> >> >
> >> >The behaviour in question is flowing over national boundaries, so you only
> >> >get a full description by looking around.
> >> >
> >> >And when postings are going on a WORLD wide web (half the newsgroups getting
> >> >this are non-US), whatever your personal intentions, if you don't make that
> >> >explicit you are not getting your message across very well. By now I know
> >> >where you are coming from - but you should make your specifics less implicit
> >> >if you want to avoid confusion.
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Sorry if I was unclear.  Note that the thread title and the reference to
> >> BLS and Census data is clearly for the USA.
> 
> Peter Lawrence:
> >
> >Note that you are wrong, possibly from applying your preconceptions again.
> >
> >The thread title is "Re: MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 1962 LOWS!!!!",
> >which has no mention of the USA.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I quote this from the original post that started this thread:
> 
> Quote:
> 
> "The employment in the manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy is now
> approaching levels not seen in 40 years!!! Take a look at the chart
> analysis for the U.S. manufacturing employment, unemployment rate,
> capacity utilization, and housing starts at
> 
>   http://www.mktcycles.com/econdata.htm
> 
> and if they interest you then enjoy browsing the sample charts at
> 
>   http://www.mktcycles.com/index.htm
> 
> End Of quote.
> 
> Now what country do you suppose he is talking about?

Now what do you suppose that has to do with making matters clear in any one 
post? Don't forget, this is a hyperlink sort of thing, and anyone coming on 
one of your posts may be misled. See Tim Worstall and kenneth couesbouc's 
dialogue over on the "world wide wealth" thread to see the sort of 
difficulties that are being incidentally thrown at non-US posters.

> 
> And what country do those charts describe?  The charts should be clearer
> than they are, since they refer to "national economic data" and don't
> specify the nation.  But I think I know.
> 
> Besides, the statement is probably not true as applied to the world as a
> whole: I bet world wide employment in manufacturing is higher now than it
> was in 1962.

But that is also a dangerous digression; it substitutes one single measure 
for another. All that the header made clear was an employment comparison, not 
where the comparison was drawn from.

> 
> >
> >Sorry to rub it in, but I do feel it is important to show you what you are
> >doing without realising.
> 
> Or perhaps you didn't read the original post very clearly?

Oh, I did - but I wasn't commenting on the POST CONTENTS, but on the 
COMMUNICATION APPROACH. I was reminding you that you have an unfortunate 
tendency to obscure your material by making it rest on all sorts of context 
that you and many Americans have. Now, I've seen Americans post in a way that 
made their assumptions explicit so you knew what you were dealing with when 
you read their stuff. That didn't mean they had to write in a universal way, 
just that they made it clear who their audience was. So it can be done. Even 
your own reaction just there - that people can find out by dredging around - 
is another example of your own approach; it assumes that they know first off 
that there is something they need to go and find out.

Perhaps an example not involving the USA might make the idea of implicit 
knowledge clear. The road rules in the UK are materially different from 
Australia, and in particular from Victoria, despite both driving on the 
correct side of the road (to throw a cultural assumption at you).

Now, on going round a roundabout, the British rules are starightforward:-

- If going left from the point of view of the road you came in on, signal 
left all the way through.

- If going straight on from the point of view of the road you came in on, 
don't signal until you pass the exit before the one you want, then signal 
left.

- If going right from the point of view of the road you came in on, signal 
right until you pass the exit before the one you want, then signal left.

In Victoria, you signal from the point of view of where you came in, all the 
way through.

The point is, the British rules are more awkward for the DRIVER - but they 
tell observers what he is about to do. Victorian rules tell you what is in 
his mind, and are easier for him, but unless you literally know where he is 
coming from they rarely tell you what he is about to do - which is what 
matters.

I believe the British approach makes for safer driving, and I believe that 
this example should make the point of communicating one's background clear 
without inadvertently treading on your own sensitivities (as I am not using a 
US example). PML.

-- 
GST+NPT=JOBS

I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production 
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment. 

See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other 
items on that page for some reasons why.