Friday, December 21, 2012
Types Of Modular Buildings
Modular construction, also called prefabricated construction, is mainly of two types: mobile offices and modular buildings. Mobile offices are generally supply buildings used by construction companies for temporary office space while modular buildings are custom-built as per the user's specifications.
modular buildings are constructed in a factory-controlled environment using the same materials that are used for traditional buildings. The floor plan nf the building is broken up into individual modules. The size of the module generally ranges in size from ten to eighteen feet in width and thirty six to seventy six feet in length.
Review: La Porta Ristorante and Wine Bar, Media, PA (Edgemont)
In June of 2011, before we discovered Anthony’s Coal-Fired Pizza in Wayne as the first top-shelf pie anywhere near West Chester PA and Philly’s Main Line, we read about Peter McAndrew’s plan to open a bistro/pizzeria in Edgemont, PA in the site of the old Locust Tavern. It’s been a long wait, but La porta is finally open and a large group of us headed there for lunch on a summer Tuesday.
The interior of La Porta oozes with rustic charm. There are two small but airy dining rooms that look like a converted farmhouse, and a smallish but chic wine bar. Our friendly waitresses pushed together three table to accommodate our party of eight. The non-pizza menu looked fascinating, but we were on a mission; we ordered eight pizzas (personal size, but bigger than the typical personal pizza) for our crew of eight and a few salads/starters.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Send The Civilians Home
The other day I overheard an Air Force Staff Sergeant tell a civilian the following:
SS: “I wrote to my congressman and told him that all the civilians should be sent home. You guys get paid too much”.
Civ: “I’m here because I want to be here. I like my job. You can apply for a civilian job when you get back”.
SS: “I like my family too much to do that to them”.
That exchange got me to thinking… what would happen if all the civilians were sent home? How would the dynamics change at Bagram? How would that affect the military in the long run or the short run?
Most of the civilians live in B-huts, relocatable buildings (RLB’s), or tents. Some civilians live in connex containers and a very few of them live in block barracks. The civilians living in block barracks generally work for the Air Force.
Most of the military live in tents (really big tents) or B-huts. Some of the military live in RLB’s or block barracks. The majority of the military in RLB’s or block barracks are Air Force.
So, living conditions for the military and civilians are on par (except if you are Army , Marine, or Navy).
Civilians are generally here longer and provide continuity when the military leave BAF (I arrived here 28 August 2007). Not all civilians have health coverage on BAF and must leave for simple things like a tooth filling.
Most of the time, civilian pay is based on US laws and computations. We do not generally get to negotiate our salaries (although, some of us have that luxury).
Most of us have families and the reason we are here are varied. Again, for the most part, we are here to make money to support our families. I know a 63 year old man that drives trucks outside the wire. He is here to send his grand kids through college. A few husband & wife teams are here to: pay for their house, pay down their bills, pay off credit cards, save money for their kids educations, or just for the pleasure of serving their country in a different fashion. I know a woman who is here just for the experiences to put on her resume (another "ticket punch") - in the hopes of getting her dream job when she leaves.
Modular Building
Modular Building. Commercial Modular Buildings are code-compliant, non-residential structures 60% to 90% completed offsite in a factory-controlled environment then transported or shipped to a final destination where the modules are then placed on a concrete foundation to form a finished building. The word "modular" does not describe a building type or style, it simply describes a means of construction.
Sandwich panel Indonesia.The commercial modular construction industry comprises two distinct divisions:Permanent Modular Construction (PMC) – modular units built offsite and assembled onsite to create a permanent facility and not intended to be relocated. They are comparable to buildings built strictly onsite in terms of quality, life span, and materials used for construction.
relocatable buildings – modular units built offsite and assembled onsite that can be partially or completely reused and relocated at future building sites.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Social Credit is Salvation Through Deflation
By: Socred - B.A., SCMP
One of the primary criticisms of Social Credit is that it is inflationary. Gary North has written a critique of Social Credit entitled “Salvation Through Inflation”. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate the claims that Social Credit policies are inflationary are fallacious, and to demonstrate that its policies are in fact the only way to reduce prices given that labour is being replaced by capital in production. Economists define inflation as too much money chasing too few goods. They argue that an increase in the money supply with a relatively fixed amount of goods and services for sale tends to increase the price of those goods and services. This assumption is based upon the quantity theory of money, which is critiqued in another article on this blog.
Douglas said there were two forces that governed prices: 1) the upper limit of price is governed by supply and demand, or what the good or service will fetch on the open market, and 2) the lower limit of price is governed by the cost of production and the rules of cost accountancy. Economists focus solely on the forces of supply and demand and their effect on prices, but they tend to ignore the rules of accrual accounting and its effect on prices. As such, economists always see rising prices as a result of too much effective demand, which they believe is the result of too much money being created. Their only policy recommendation to eliminate, or reduce, inflation is to reduce the quantity of money being created. The quantity theory of money ignores how money is created by banks as a debt. It also ignores the fact that the creation of money for capital production is prior to said capital being able to produce any consumer goods.
When physical capital (machines, raw materials, factories etc…) is created it is generally financed through loans from banks. This increases the money supply at the time the capital is being constructed, and this money makes its way to consumers as effective demand through wages, salaries and dividends. Since the capital is being constructed, it is not capable of creating any new consumer goods, so the income disbursed in its creation makes its way to consumer goods and services already on the market. This has a tendency to inflate the price of those goods and services, and this is what economists would call “too much money chasing too few goods”. But is it too much money? The money disbursed via the construction of capital has to be given to consumers, because eventually said income will be part of the cost of that capital. If that money was not disbursed, consumers would not have enough income to pay for the capital as it was expensed at a later point in time. In other words, rising prices at the time capital is being created is not caused by “too much money”: it’s caused by income making its way to consumers prior to the capital being built being able to produce any consumer goods and services. This income is necessary to defray the cost of the capital being created, but it is not used to purchase the consumer goods said capital produces, because consumers have to use it to purchase goods and services at the time the capital is constructed in order to meet the needs of living.
Once the capital is constructed its costs are generally capitalized and expensed over a period of time using the rules of accrual accounting. Douglas’s A+B theorem divides costs into two categories: 1) A = income = wages, salaries and dividends, and 2) B = payments to other organizations. Over any given time an organization will distribute A in income and charge A+B in prices. This is true for all organizations. Consequently if we sum all of the income disbursed in an economy over a period of time it will always be less than the total prices generated over the same period of time. If this is true, how has the economy not collapsed? It has not collapsed because income in the creation of capital is distributed prior to the capital’s costs entering the market and being charged to the consumer. So long as capital is being created, and debt/money is increasing in order to finance its creation, the economy functions fairly well. As soon as the capital’s costs enter the costs of consumer goods, income is insufficient to defray those costs, unless more capital is being contructed, because the income disbursed to create the capital was used to purchase consumer goods at the time the capital was created.
As labour is displaced in production by capital, B costs increase relative to A costs. How does this influence prices? Price = A+B, and if B is increasing relative to A, then any attempt to stabilize or increase A (income) has to be met with rising prices. Conversely, any attempt to stabilize prices (A+B) has to be met by falling incomes (A). In other words, even if there’s not “too much money chasing too few goods”, prices will rise so long as the government tries to stabilize or increase incomes. Inflation is systemic given the rules of cost accountancy coupled with the fact that labour is being replaced by capital in production and a policy of full employment is being pursued. This is why the government accepts “limited” inflation: they are afraid of the effects of reducing prices will have on people’s incomes and economic activity.
Fortunately, there is a solution, and it’s the only mathematically viable solution. The solution is reduce prices at the point of retail with monies with no cost attached to them. If money passes through the productive system, it has to have a cost attached to it, but if the money is given directly to the consumer it does not. Prices can be reduced to the consumer via a price rebate distributed with debt/cost free money given to the consumer. For instance, if the price of the good or service is $100 and the rebate to the consumer is $25, then the price of the good/service has been reduced by $25 to $75. The retailer receives $100 and the consumer pays $75 – the difference is made up via the creation of new debt free money.
In summary, prices are governed by two limits – supply and demand and the cost of production. The quantity theory of money, and the belief that inflation is only caused by too much money chasing too few goods, focuses solely on supply and demand and assumes that prices are only governed by these factors. However, prices are also governed by costs and the rules of accrual accounting. The fact that labour is being displaced in production, combined with a policy of full employment, increases the costs of production and consquently prices, even though consumers have inadequate incomes to purchase all of production. The only way to eliminate this type of inflation is to give consumers a price rebate at the point of retail. Therefore, not only is Social Credit not inflationary, but its policies are the only viable way to eliminate the real cause of most inflation today which is the displacement of labour in production coupled with full employment policies.
One of the primary criticisms of Social Credit is that it is inflationary. Gary North has written a critique of Social Credit entitled “Salvation Through Inflation”. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate the claims that Social Credit policies are inflationary are fallacious, and to demonstrate that its policies are in fact the only way to reduce prices given that labour is being replaced by capital in production. Economists define inflation as too much money chasing too few goods. They argue that an increase in the money supply with a relatively fixed amount of goods and services for sale tends to increase the price of those goods and services. This assumption is based upon the quantity theory of money, which is critiqued in another article on this blog.
Douglas said there were two forces that governed prices: 1) the upper limit of price is governed by supply and demand, or what the good or service will fetch on the open market, and 2) the lower limit of price is governed by the cost of production and the rules of cost accountancy. Economists focus solely on the forces of supply and demand and their effect on prices, but they tend to ignore the rules of accrual accounting and its effect on prices. As such, economists always see rising prices as a result of too much effective demand, which they believe is the result of too much money being created. Their only policy recommendation to eliminate, or reduce, inflation is to reduce the quantity of money being created. The quantity theory of money ignores how money is created by banks as a debt. It also ignores the fact that the creation of money for capital production is prior to said capital being able to produce any consumer goods.
When physical capital (machines, raw materials, factories etc…) is created it is generally financed through loans from banks. This increases the money supply at the time the capital is being constructed, and this money makes its way to consumers as effective demand through wages, salaries and dividends. Since the capital is being constructed, it is not capable of creating any new consumer goods, so the income disbursed in its creation makes its way to consumer goods and services already on the market. This has a tendency to inflate the price of those goods and services, and this is what economists would call “too much money chasing too few goods”. But is it too much money? The money disbursed via the construction of capital has to be given to consumers, because eventually said income will be part of the cost of that capital. If that money was not disbursed, consumers would not have enough income to pay for the capital as it was expensed at a later point in time. In other words, rising prices at the time capital is being created is not caused by “too much money”: it’s caused by income making its way to consumers prior to the capital being built being able to produce any consumer goods and services. This income is necessary to defray the cost of the capital being created, but it is not used to purchase the consumer goods said capital produces, because consumers have to use it to purchase goods and services at the time the capital is constructed in order to meet the needs of living.
Once the capital is constructed its costs are generally capitalized and expensed over a period of time using the rules of accrual accounting. Douglas’s A+B theorem divides costs into two categories: 1) A = income = wages, salaries and dividends, and 2) B = payments to other organizations. Over any given time an organization will distribute A in income and charge A+B in prices. This is true for all organizations. Consequently if we sum all of the income disbursed in an economy over a period of time it will always be less than the total prices generated over the same period of time. If this is true, how has the economy not collapsed? It has not collapsed because income in the creation of capital is distributed prior to the capital’s costs entering the market and being charged to the consumer. So long as capital is being created, and debt/money is increasing in order to finance its creation, the economy functions fairly well. As soon as the capital’s costs enter the costs of consumer goods, income is insufficient to defray those costs, unless more capital is being contructed, because the income disbursed to create the capital was used to purchase consumer goods at the time the capital was created.
As labour is displaced in production by capital, B costs increase relative to A costs. How does this influence prices? Price = A+B, and if B is increasing relative to A, then any attempt to stabilize or increase A (income) has to be met with rising prices. Conversely, any attempt to stabilize prices (A+B) has to be met by falling incomes (A). In other words, even if there’s not “too much money chasing too few goods”, prices will rise so long as the government tries to stabilize or increase incomes. Inflation is systemic given the rules of cost accountancy coupled with the fact that labour is being replaced by capital in production and a policy of full employment is being pursued. This is why the government accepts “limited” inflation: they are afraid of the effects of reducing prices will have on people’s incomes and economic activity.
Fortunately, there is a solution, and it’s the only mathematically viable solution. The solution is reduce prices at the point of retail with monies with no cost attached to them. If money passes through the productive system, it has to have a cost attached to it, but if the money is given directly to the consumer it does not. Prices can be reduced to the consumer via a price rebate distributed with debt/cost free money given to the consumer. For instance, if the price of the good or service is $100 and the rebate to the consumer is $25, then the price of the good/service has been reduced by $25 to $75. The retailer receives $100 and the consumer pays $75 – the difference is made up via the creation of new debt free money.
In summary, prices are governed by two limits – supply and demand and the cost of production. The quantity theory of money, and the belief that inflation is only caused by too much money chasing too few goods, focuses solely on supply and demand and assumes that prices are only governed by these factors. However, prices are also governed by costs and the rules of accrual accounting. The fact that labour is being displaced in production, combined with a policy of full employment, increases the costs of production and consquently prices, even though consumers have inadequate incomes to purchase all of production. The only way to eliminate this type of inflation is to give consumers a price rebate at the point of retail. Therefore, not only is Social Credit not inflationary, but its policies are the only viable way to eliminate the real cause of most inflation today which is the displacement of labour in production coupled with full employment policies.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
What Do These People Have In Common
1. Anonymous posted a concern and was immediately responded;
2. Somebody sends an e-mail directly to me and was immediately answered;
3. Someone texted me several times in the middle of the night about a demand letter;
4. I called the defaulter about his worries, at my own expense;
5. Requests for call diverts were accommodated;
6. All concerns were addressed immediately to the satisfaction of the defaulters.
Answer:
http://failuretopaycreditcard.blogspot.com/2009/12/parable-of-ten-lepers.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)