|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
* * * * 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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Not really CHANGE, Same Old **** Already
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. |
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 12:41 PM |
Frame" to change or not to change | dale_dale | Unicycling | 0 | January 21st 06 02:21 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 |