A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 12th 08, 07:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Anton Berlin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,381
Default 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  
Old November 12th 08, 09:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Kurgan Gringioni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,796
Default 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  
Old November 12th 08, 09:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,859
Default 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  
Old November 12th 08, 10:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 439
Default 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  
Old November 12th 08, 11:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Anton Berlin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,381
Default 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  
Old November 13th 08, 02:22 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 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  
Old November 13th 08, 04:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 822
Default 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  
Old November 13th 08, 04:08 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Anton Berlin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,381
Default 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  
Old November 13th 08, 04:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Howard Kveck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,549
Default 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  
Old November 13th 08, 04:16 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Howard Kveck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,549
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.