Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already

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.

Let 'em go bankrupt. They'll survive. Everyone acts like bankruptcy is
the end of the world. It's not, just ask United Airlines.

The case for bailing out the airlines is better than for bailing out GM
or Ford. And it's not great there either.

The problems on Wall St. were caused by too many banks making decisions
to maximize short term profit at the expense of long term health.
Bailing out GM and Ford would be another decision focussed upon short
term effects, without respect to long term health. Don't do it.

* * * * Exactly what manufacturing is doing well in the U.S. right now (besides
maybe--and maybe not even) military contractors. *Telecom?
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001- Hide quoted text -


I am in telecom and we paid our dues in 2001-2003. It's a bull market
now (at least as long as the consumer is willing to pay $200 a month
for telecom and entertainment services (cell, tv, internet) I think
they are willing to sacrifice health care before they'll give up 122
channels of mind numbing or their access to call people dumbass on
rbr.

You and your partner are lucky, you both picked an occupation that
can't be offshored and live in an area of the country that is tolerant
of homosexuals.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:59:24 -0800 (PST), Anton Berlin
wrote:

You and your partner are lucky,

They're brothers, not lovers. Not that there's anything wrong with
that.

Anton Berlin wrote:
Exactly what manufacturing is doing well in the U.S. right now (besides
maybe--and maybe not even) military contractors. Telecom?
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001- Hide quoted text -


I am in telecom and we paid our dues in 2001-2003. It's a bull market
now (at least as long as the consumer is willing to pay $200 a month
for telecom and entertainment services (cell, tv, internet) I think
they are willing to sacrifice health care before they'll give up 122
channels of mind numbing or their access to call people dumbass on
rbr.

You and your partner are lucky, you both picked an occupation that
can't be offshored and live in an area of the country that is tolerant
of homosexuals.


I was too harsh. On reflection, the U.S. is still a leader in consumer
non-durables (think Procter and Gamble, Colgate Palmalive). You might
say consumer electronics, but I'd guess the bulk of that is now
manufactured overseas.
I may be too harsh judging by the situation vis a vis manufacturing by
the current economic climate, which is hurting not just the old-line
manufacturing powers, but the entire world.
The U.S. is possibly the biggest manufacturer overall of medical
equipment, though I'd bet many components are now produced overseas.
The outsourcing of componentry does make it hard to evaluate domestic
manufacturing. We are likely rivaled by Germany, Japan, the Netherlands
(via Phillips), and Scandinavia. I'm sure India is tooling up there too.
Thank you for your temperate response to my intemperate blowup. My
brother and I have however seen our volume drop precipitously in the
past few months, though I am not ready to blame it all on the economic
crisis. My wife is in real estate, so the less said the better.
I do live in a very tolerant area, though I'm not sure what tolerance
of homosexuals has to do with the economy.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:59:24 -0800 (PST), Anton Berlin
wrote:

You and your partner are lucky,

They're brothers, not lovers. Not that there's anything wrong with
that.


Thanks JT--I'm so thick I had no idea he was talking about me. Not
that there's anything wrong with it.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

On Nov 13, 12:01*am, wrote:
On Nov 13, 12:34 am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

Dumbass -

Go read my goddamm post before trying to refute me when I actually
agree with you.

I said it's politically impossible to let them die. That doesn't mean
that letting them die is the wrong thing to do. Populism and economic
theory rarely walk hand in hand.

I was responding to your statement that "in normal times GM would be
left to the market." You seem to imply that GM would be allowed to
fail under some different circumstances. And if that's what you were
saying, there's no support for that assertion.




Dumbass -


Are you really that clueless?

They can blame their current travails on the financial crisis,
something not of their making. Most consumers in this country finance
their new auto purchases.

I can expound further if you wish.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Nov 13, 7:59*am, Anton Berlin wrote:


You and your partner are lucky, you both picked an occupation that
can't be offshored and live in an area of the country that is tolerant
of homosexuals.




Dumbass -


Why do you persist with your Wide Stance Repulicanism? Larry Craig is
not gonna get re-elected.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Nov 13, 8:03*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:59:24 -0800 (PST), Anton Berlin

wrote:
You and your partner are lucky,

They're brothers. Not that there's anything wrong with
that.




Dumbass -


What would be the matter with being brothers?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Nov 13, 8:03 am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:59:24 -0800 (PST), Anton Berlin

wrote:
You and your partner are lucky,
They're brothers. Not that there's anything wrong with
that.




Dumbass -


What would be the matter with being brothers?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.


I guess you have no brothers. ;-)

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

On Nov 13, 9:30*am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Nov 13, 12:01*am, wrote:

On Nov 13, 12:34 am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

Dumbass -

Go read my goddamm post before trying to refute me when I actually
agree with you.

I said it's politically impossible to let them die. That doesn't mean
that letting them die is the wrong thing to do. Populism and economic
theory rarely walk hand in hand.

I was responding to your statement that "in normal times GM would be
left to the market." You seem to imply that GM would be allowed to
fail under some different circumstances. And if that's what you were
saying, there's no support for that assertion.

Dumbass -

Are you really that clueless?

They can blame their current travails on the financial crisis,
something not of their making. Most consumers in this country finance
their new auto purchases.

I can expound further if you wish.

Dumbass,

They are trying to blame their travails on the financial crisis, but
anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that's a crock of
****. Are you really that clueless? Their travails are 30 years in the
making. GM lost 38 billion in 2007.