|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
Imagine for a moment, a large diseased and dying redwood tree
surrounded by hundreds and thousands of little saplings of many various species. Apple trees, pine, walnut and even young redwoods. If you had to supply resources (sunshine and water) to the large 200ft redwood you might have to provide about 500 gallons a day of water to sustain this tree. Or alternatively you could provide a gallon a day to 500 of these little tress and in a few years see which ones will bear fruit, shade and nuts or lumber. Not all of those little trees will make it but many of them will. If you’re trying to plan for the future, do you support (provide resources) for a this one tree (that will most likely find itself in the same position 10-20 years down the road – merely because of its size) or do you support the 100s of little trees that promise growth and diversity? It’s pretty clear that, unless you are that large dying giant, you vote to have the resources distributed to the many instead of the one. There is an optimum size to every living entity, whether it is a tree, a human or a corporation. Nature ultimately culls the unnecessarily large or inefficient from the herds of its populations. It’s a time proven and observable fact. So why, at this time is the US Government putting so much effort into supporting the dying giants whether they are General Motors, AIG or other inefficient and unnecessarily large institutions? There is no GROWTH in feeding resources to an entity that has already exceeded its optimum size and efficiency. Take for instance General Motors that for years and years persisted in creating giant 2-3 ton SUVs instead of applying new ideas and materials to create efficient and safe vehicles that could be afforded by more people and use the same amount of resources to produce 3-4x the ‘passenger miles’. Instead of loading 300-400hp and 3 tons of materials into a single vehicle, GM could have built 4 cars with 50hp motors, composite materials and were thus light enough to take advantage of new hybrid technologies and mainly powered by small electric motors supplemented by solar and regenerative systems as a part of the car. On the sidelines, waiting for and dependent on the failure of GM are 1000’s of innovative entrepreneurs that will create, merge and grow new technologies into the GMs of the future until ultimately they must fail and fall aside to make way for the next generation of innovation and initiative. It’s a zero sum game with a slight interval between the death of GM and other inefficient giants and the redistribution of the resources (current GM employees, designers, subcontractors, suppliers, etc) to the innovators and little saplings that we will harvest from in the future and all share in the creation of. We will always need x amount of ‘transportation’ and only have y amount of resources to support both the ‘passenger mile’ needs and the amount of resources that go into each passenger mile. We have been horribly wasteful on both an individual and national level on both accounts. Supporting GM, propping up the near dead just prolongs our national agony and opens the door for more nimble nations to benefit from our shortsightedness and attachment to the past. If it’s about change and about time then we are not really changing at all. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
On Nov 12, 10:28*am, Anton Berlin wrote:
Imagine for a moment, a large diseased and dying redwood tree surrounded by hundreds and thousands of little saplings of many various species. *Apple trees, pine, walnut and even young redwoods. If you had to supply resources (sunshine and water) to the large 200ft redwood you might have to provide about 500 gallons a day of water to sustain this tree. *Or alternatively you could provide a gallon a day to 500 of these little tress and in a few years see which ones will bear fruit, shade and nuts or lumber. Not all of those little trees will make it but many of them will. *If you’re trying to plan for the future, do you support (provide resources) for a this one tree (that will most likely find itself in the same position 10-20 years down the road – merely because of its size) or do you support the 100s of little trees that promise growth and diversity? It’s pretty clear that, unless you are that large dying giant, you vote to have the resources distributed to the many instead of the one. *There is an optimum size to every living entity, whether it is a tree, a human or a corporation. *Nature ultimately culls the unnecessarily large or inefficient from the herds of its populations. It’s a time proven and observable fact. So why, at this time is the US Government putting so much effort into supporting the dying giants whether they are General Motors, AIG or other inefficient and unnecessarily large institutions? There is no GROWTH in feeding resources to an entity that has already exceeded its optimum size and efficiency. Take for instance General Motors that for years and years persisted in creating giant 2-3 ton SUVs instead of applying new ideas and materials to create efficient and safe vehicles that could be afforded by more people and use the same amount of resources to produce 3-4x the ‘passenger miles’. *Instead of loading 300-400hp and 3 tons of materials into a single vehicle, GM could have built 4 cars with 50hp motors, composite materials and were thus light enough to take advantage of new hybrid technologies and mainly powered by small electric motors supplemented by solar and regenerative systems as a part of the car. On the sidelines, waiting for and dependent on the failure of GM are 1000’s of innovative entrepreneurs that will create, merge and grow new technologies into the GMs of the future until ultimately they must fail and fall aside to make way for the next generation of innovation and initiative. It’s a zero sum game with a slight interval between the death of GM and other inefficient giants and the redistribution of the resources (current GM employees, designers, subcontractors, suppliers, etc) to the innovators and little saplings that we will harvest from in the future and all share in the creation of. *We will always need x amount of ‘transportation’ and only have y amount of resources to support both the ‘passenger mile’ needs and the amount of resources that go into each passenger mile. We have been horribly wasteful on both an individual and national level on both accounts. *Supporting GM, propping up the near dead just prolongs our national agony and opens the door for more nimble nations to benefit from our shortsightedness and attachment to the past. If it’s about change and about time then we are not really changing at all. Dumbass - That is all correct from an economic point of view, but politically they have to prop it up because they propped up the financial industry. Slippery, slippery slope. In normal times, GM would be left to the free market, but these aren't normal times. Thanks to Phil Gramm, W. Bush and Alan Greenspan, the architects of this mess. thanks, K. Gringioni. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
On Nov 12, 1:06*pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Nov 12, 10:28*am, Anton Berlin wrote: Imagine for a moment, a large diseased and dying redwood tree surrounded by hundreds and thousands of little saplings of many various species. *Apple trees, pine, walnut and even young redwoods. If you had to supply resources (sunshine and water) to the large 200ft redwood you might have to provide about 500 gallons a day of water to sustain this tree. *Or alternatively you could provide a gallon a day to 500 of these little tress and in a few years see which ones will bear fruit, shade and nuts or lumber. Not all of those little trees will make it but many of them will. *If you’re trying to plan for the future, do you support (provide resources) for a this one tree (that will most likely find itself in the same position 10-20 years down the road – merely because of its size) or do you support the 100s of little trees that promise growth and diversity? It’s pretty clear that, unless you are that large dying giant, you vote to have the resources distributed to the many instead of the one. *There is an optimum size to every living entity, whether it is a tree, a human or a corporation. *Nature ultimately culls the unnecessarily large or inefficient from the herds of its populations. It’s a time proven and observable fact. So why, at this time is the US Government putting so much effort into supporting the dying giants whether they are General Motors, AIG or other inefficient and unnecessarily large institutions? There is no GROWTH in feeding resources to an entity that has already exceeded its optimum size and efficiency. Take for instance General Motors that for years and years persisted in creating giant 2-3 ton SUVs instead of applying new ideas and materials to create efficient and safe vehicles that could be afforded by more people and use the same amount of resources to produce 3-4x the ‘passenger miles’. *Instead of loading 300-400hp and 3 tons of materials into a single vehicle, GM could have built 4 cars with 50hp motors, composite materials and were thus light enough to take advantage of new hybrid technologies and mainly powered by small electric motors supplemented by solar and regenerative systems as a part of the car. On the sidelines, waiting for and dependent on the failure of GM are 1000’s of innovative entrepreneurs that will create, merge and grow new technologies into the GMs of the future until ultimately they must fail and fall aside to make way for the next generation of innovation and initiative. It’s a zero sum game with a slight interval between the death of GM and other inefficient giants and the redistribution of the resources (current GM employees, designers, subcontractors, suppliers, etc) to the innovators and little saplings that we will harvest from in the future and all share in the creation of. *We will always need x amount of ‘transportation’ and only have y amount of resources to support both the ‘passenger mile’ needs and the amount of resources that go into each passenger mile. We have been horribly wasteful on both an individual and national level on both accounts. *Supporting GM, propping up the near dead just prolongs our national agony and opens the door for more nimble nations to benefit from our shortsightedness and attachment to the past. If it’s about change and about time then we are not really changing at all. Dumbass - That is all correct from an economic point of view, but politically they have to prop it up because they propped up the financial industry. Slippery, slippery slope. In normal times, GM would be left to the free market, but these aren't normal times. Thanks to Phil Gramm, W. Bush and Alan Greenspan, the architects of this mess. thanks, K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dumbass, I know you love to hate W, but this problem and the failed solutions have been going on for far longer than the guys you mentioned have been players in the game. Note to Obama: A solution to the GM/Ford debacle... tell Michigan that the solution is a 'right to work' law combined with a filing of bankruptcy so they can back out of the crippling deals they've made with the unions. Start over. The US auto industry isn't in trouble. The auto industry in Michigan is in trouble. Automakers in right to work states are doing just fine. Even GM themselves have admitted that they've failed so far to produce a small, economical offering because the high labor rates they are coerced to pay keeps the project from being profitable. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
Anton Berlin wrote:
(snip) Would we hear a different tune if your ass was on the line? U.S. manufacturing is dying. So-called "right-to-work" auto manufacturing in this country is not going to thrive unless it is manned by illegal immigrants. Otherwise the auto industry will be no better than the textile industry. If cheaper prices are all we value, we'll get all our goods from the third world via Walmart. Thank God we still have the securities market--oops! Steve -- Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
* * * * Would we hear a different tune if your ass was on the line? No, besides I wouldn't have a choice in the matter. The zero-sum game is the important realization. We will still need cars, still need people to make them domestically. Just not the same stupid selfish jackasses making the wrong decisions and these beheamouths. *U.S. manufacturing is dying. It doesn't have to die. Just needs to evolve and innovate. Supporting these dying giants is not the answer. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
On Nov 12, 2:59*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:
* * * * Would we hear a different tune if your ass was on the line? No, besides I wouldn't have a choice in the matter. *The zero-sum game is the important realization. We will still need cars, still need people to make them domestically. *Just not the same stupid selfish jackasses making the wrong decisions and these beheamouths. **U.S. manufacturing is dying. It doesn't have to die. *Just needs to evolve and innovate. Supporting these dying giants is not the answer. I wonder why people who haven't manufactured anything are so busy telling us all about it. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
On Nov 12, 11:28 am, Anton Berlin wrote:
Imagine for a moment, a large diseased and dying redwood tree surrounded by hundreds and thousands of little saplings of many various species. Apple trees, pine, walnut and even young redwoods. If you had to supply resources (sunshine and water) to the large 200ft redwood you might have to provide about 500 gallons a day of water to sustain this tree. Or alternatively you could provide a gallon a day to 500 of these little tress and in a few years see which ones will bear fruit, shade and nuts or lumber. Not all of those little trees will make it but many of them will. If you’re trying to plan for the future, do you support (provide resources) for a this one tree (that will most likely find itself in the same position 10-20 years down the road – merely because of its size) or do you support the 100s of little trees that promise growth and diversity? It’s pretty clear that, unless you are that large dying giant, you vote to have the resources distributed to the many instead of the one. There is an optimum size to every living entity, whether it is a tree, a human or a corporation. Nature ultimately culls the unnecessarily large or inefficient from the herds of its populations. It’s a time proven and observable fact. So why, at this time is the US Government putting so much effort into supporting the dying giants whether they are General Motors, AIG or other inefficient and unnecessarily large institutions? There is no GROWTH in feeding resources to an entity that has already exceeded its optimum size and efficiency. Take for instance General Motors that for years and years persisted in creating giant 2-3 ton SUVs instead of applying new ideas and materials to create efficient and safe vehicles that could be afforded by more people and use the same amount of resources to produce 3-4x the ‘passenger miles’. Instead of loading 300-400hp and 3 tons of materials into a single vehicle, GM could have built 4 cars with 50hp motors, composite materials and were thus light enough to take advantage of new hybrid technologies and mainly powered by small electric motors supplemented by solar and regenerative systems as a part of the car. On the sidelines, waiting for and dependent on the failure of GM are 1000’s of innovative entrepreneurs that will create, merge and grow new technologies into the GMs of the future until ultimately they must fail and fall aside to make way for the next generation of innovation and initiative. It’s a zero sum game with a slight interval between the death of GM and other inefficient giants and the redistribution of the resources (current GM employees, designers, subcontractors, suppliers, etc) to the innovators and little saplings that we will harvest from in the future and all share in the creation of. We will always need x amount of ‘transportation’ and only have y amount of resources to support both the ‘passenger mile’ needs and the amount of resources that go into each passenger mile. We have been horribly wasteful on both an individual and national level on both accounts. Supporting GM, propping up the near dead just prolongs our national agony and opens the door for more nimble nations to benefit from our shortsightedness and attachment to the past. If it’s about change and about time then we are not really changing at all. You are correct. I believe the technical term is Death Spiral. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
On Nov 12, 7:22*pm, wrote:
On Nov 12, 2:59*pm, Anton Berlin wrote: * * * * Would we hear a different tune if your ass was on the line? No, besides I wouldn't have a choice in the matter. *The zero-sum game is the important realization. We will still need cars, still need people to make them domestically. *Just not the same stupid selfish jackasses making the wrong decisions and these beheamouths. **U.S. manufacturing is dying. It doesn't have to die. *Just needs to evolve and innovate. Supporting these dying giants is not the answer. I wonder why people who haven't manufactured anything are so busy telling us all about it. I'll bet most everyone in this forum with a little mechanical knowledge of a bicycle has at least thought at one time that they could make an ultra-efficient vehicle using a combination of off the shelf components used on bicycles and the processes used to manufacturer bike frames whether aluminum, steel or composite. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
In article ,
Anton Berlin wrote: In short, GM and the UAW can eat it just like the rest of us. They failed miserably and at some point there has to be some responsibility taken. People have to suffer the losses. You have to suffer the losses before you can fix it and move on. All we're doing is kicking **** down the line a little bit and making it worse. GM is f@#!*$# in the way at this point.- You nailed it. But the problem remains, no matter how many intelligent people there are with this voice, we remain unheard while the ****ers get their way and take a piece from all of us. They keep saying (and convential logic says) they're too big to die. I am arguing they are big enough that they MUST die. This "too big to let die" deal is retarded. If a company has gotten so big that when it ****s up and collapses, it can cause the entire world market to go wobbly is dangerous. How you prevent it from happening is a good question. After spending a bunch of time talking about how bad it would be to let AIG collapse because "they were too big to die," the govt. let Bank of America buy Merrill Lynch, which makes a huge bank into an even bigger corporation. What happens when BofA ****s up? Hello, tax payers, gimme money! -- tanx, Howard Abandon the Creeping Meatball! remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
In article ,
Scott wrote: On Nov 12, 2:29*pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote: Anton Berlin wrote: (snip) * * * * Would we hear a different tune if your ass was on the line? *U.S. manufacturing is dying. *So-called "right-to-work" auto manufacturing in this country is not going to thrive unless it is manned by illegal immigrants. *Otherwise the auto industry will be no better than the textile industry. * * * * If cheaper prices are all we value, we'll get all our goods from the third world via Walmart. *Thank God we still have the securities market--oops! Let me get this right, you think the auto companies operating in right to work states are using illegal immigrants for their work force? No, you didn't mean that, but it sure seems like you think that without the unions to protect the workers the wages will go so low that the only folks who'll take the jobs are the illegals. BS. The industry is doing quite well with well and fairly paid non-union employees in right to work states. Michigan is the exception and they need a reality check. There may have been a need for the UAW at one time, but now they're killing US automakers. Well, I don't think the UAW is killing the big three. They made ****ty choices on what to make and sell and are paying for it now.There are aspects of the union contracts that aren't helping, that is certain, and the unions did a lot of good for workers in the past. I sometimes think that they should reorganize more in line with the concept of a trade guild, where they supply workers and if someone doesn't cut it, the guild replaces that worker. -- tanx, Howard Abandon the Creeping Meatball! remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Learn English!!!! Change ur language and you change ur thoughts. | [email protected] | UK | 0 | May 2nd 08 05:23 AM |
Frame" to change or not to change | silverfridge | Unicycling | 17 | January 23rd 06 01:41 PM |
Frame" to change or not to change | dale_dale | Unicycling | 0 | January 21st 06 03:21 PM |
To change (the fork) or not to change, that's the question! | Derk | Techniques | 0 | June 30th 05 03:26 PM |
Change of chainring like for like but now it won't change smoothly | [email protected] | UK | 5 | June 20th 05 10:02 PM |