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.

? They make money they are left to the market they start to keel
suddenly the market is broken and government has to "take an ownership
stake." Uh, no thanks. Why would anyone want to own a piece of that
steaming pile of losing proposition. Let it die and restructure the
whole thing with competent individuals, the govt. takes care of these
people one way or the other at this point. No blank check to Detroit/
UAW.

Thanks to Phil Gramm, W. Bush and Alan Greenspan, the architects of
this mess.

The housing bubble is largely on Greenspan, you can't pin GMs failure
on housing or credit, although they keep trying. Ridiculous.

Things are tough everywhere. Critical shortage of funding in the
schools and my wife might lose her teaching job. Why is it more
important for GM to get 75 billion than the schools? Whose job is more
important, assembly line at GM or teacher in public school, or
fireman? Why are we not bailing out the states and local governments?
Why not bail out the owner of the Mexican restaurant down the street?
Yeah yeah, 1 in 10 jobs blah blah blah. Whatever, we'll take the hit.
We have no choice. There is no alternative, just a bunch of candyland
bull**** that explodes on your kids.

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.

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.

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!

Steve

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

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.

On Nov 12, 1:29*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.



Dumbass -


Yours is one of the most misinformed I've ever seen on this topic.

The problem with the auto industry isn't wages and illegal immigrants
for the most part do not work in manufacturing jobs.

Manufacturing as a whole actually isn't going down the tubes. We just
compete poorly in certain sectors.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Nov 12, 12:33*pm, Scott wrote:
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.



Dumbass -


The housing bubble has made it so the automakers have no time left.
They were looking like they had about a year to turn it around, but
with no one lending (and therefore few people buying cars), they're
down to just a few months.

I agree that they caused their own disease, but the financial crisis
has sped up the cancer.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Nov 12, 7:27*pm, wrote:
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.

? They make money they are left to the market they start to keel
suddenly the market is broken and government has to "take an ownership
stake." Uh, no thanks. Why would anyone want to own a piece of that
steaming pile of losing proposition. Let it die and restructure the
whole thing with competent individuals, the govt. takes care of these
people one way or the other at this point. No blank check to Detroit/
UAW.

snip



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.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

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.

On Nov 12, 10:11*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
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?

Howard this is part of the good laugh I got at the Republican's
expense this campaign season. They kept bringing up TR and saying
"What would teddy have done?". The first thing he would've done is
trashed them for being whores for giant merger/semi monopoly companies
and then bitch slapped the companies. he sure as **** wouldn't be
handing out licenses to drill, mine, and trash huge chunks of our
national lands for next to nothing in return to the actual people of
the US either.
They hated him then, the reality is they'd hate him even more today
because he'd be right there along side Gore raising holy hell over our
environmental policy, and for them being in the pocket of their
croporate welfare cash cows.
Obama's gonna have to walk a fine line on this with the competing
interests and propaganda scare campaign being waged in the name of
"Drill Baby, Drill!!". McCain totally sold out on the issue, Obama
will protect our publicly owned lands and resources, and has a solid
mandate to do it with.
Bill C

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!

Steve

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

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.



No, I think all auto manufacturing will eventually be outsourced to
countries with lower labor costs. You think the auto companies are some
beneficent mama who will take good care of it's employees, you haven't
been paying attention.

Steve

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

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Nov 12, 1:29 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.



Dumbass -


Yours is one of the most misinformed I've ever seen on this topic.

The problem with the auto industry isn't wages and illegal immigrants
for the most part do not work in manufacturing jobs.

Manufacturing as a whole actually isn't going down the tubes. We just
compete poorly in certain sectors.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.


Exactly what manufacturing is doing well in the U.S. right now (besides
maybe--and maybe not even) military contractors. Telecom? Computers?
Solar cells?

Steve

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