N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


Exactly, he saw that by looking at the longterm, his overall total profits
would be enhanced. He wanted a longterm, stable income than a quick buck.

And the most amazing thing is that with just that outlook, we not only
stabilize the situation, but we preserve the best part of how our
econmmic system works.


Henry Ford wasn't a paragon of virtue by any means but he did take the long
view. That's considered old-fashioned today.

It's a debatable case for invoking Godwin, maybe?

I always thought that the best way was to let the businesses do their
thing as much as possible, with a light touch. The time for intervention
is when the business threatens the environment, employee rights (such as
there are any) or of course engaging in illegal activities, which there
will always be some companies willing to do that. And of course the
monopoly problems.


Of course - the devil is in the details, though. How much environmental threat
is OK? What rights do employees really have?

Sure. We have a local case in which a massive amount of known Iron
Pyrite rock was dumped in a small valley with a stream running along the
bottom of the valley. The valley is all filled in now. The predictable
happened, and we now have a massive acid drainage problem that will kill
many tourist frequented streams and will probably sterilize the creeks
it runs into and construction on the highway has been stopped, and we
have a real mess on our hands.

Not much of a gray area there I think. And we can keep busy enough with
the blatant cases that we don't have to go after Joe six-pack and his
Sunday BBQ or his lawnmower.

Martha and her bookie...I mean broker...got convicted, didn't they?

Here's a datapoint for ya: The USA imported 57% of the petroleum used here last
year, up from 56% in the previous year. Domestic production is down slightly.
Even if the Alaskan refuge is drilled, it will be 10 years before full
production is reached there. Gasoline prices are already about $1.75 and it's
only March.

Some people are making a good profit.


Meanwhile, SUV sales are at record levels and a process called TDP (Thermal
Depolymerization) is almost unheard of.

Wellll, you are partially correct. You lump SUV's as if they are all of
the Excursion/Suburban/Escalade type. And that is wrong. I just bought
an SUV that gets in the 20's in town, and low 30's on the highway. It's
downright tiny by comparison, and is a very responsible vehicle as far
as resources go.

And I don't think that any of the Bio fuel options are viable or even
desirable. To see what I mean, replacement of even a tiny fraction of
what we use now in fossil fuel will take a lot of biofuel, and how much
can we make?

The tragedy of the biofuels is this:

America decides that we should go ethanol in a big way. Lots of corn
and other sources are grown for fermentation. After all, this will use
up that silly surplus, right?

Only then it's no longer surplus. There would be a lot of pressure to
grow more and more of the raw materials. Have you seen what has happened
to much of the great plains lately? Salt desert, and besides that, the
aquifer is not being recharged except at a very slow rate.

Now when push comes to shove, and population starts to strain our
ability to produce food, you make the decision. Food or fuel? Who drives
and who dies?

How do we get folks to take the long view again?

It will probably take running out of/low on resources of one kind or
the other. Like the above.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

We manufacture and produce some things, but much of the production -
automated
and all - is moving to places like China.

In our area, a whole glass production plant has been disassembled and
moved to China, where they are putting it back together. A lot of good
paying skilled jobs lost.

Good grief, next thing to go would be flatware and napkins. First
china, then crystal, then more forking around. Your dinner done
up with all imported settings.

Another capacitor making plant has just shut down to move out also.
these jobs weren't as good paying, but they were still jobs. All this in
just one year.

Support them. Increase your capacity.

Perhaps they should eat cake?

Betty Croker is doing that to Little Debbie.

LHA / WMD

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Exactly, he saw that by looking at the longterm, his overall total profits
would be enhanced. He wanted a longterm, stable income than a quick buck.

And the most amazing thing is that with just that outlook, we not only
stabilize the situation, but we preserve the best part of how our
econmmic system works.

Henry Ford wasn't a paragon of virtue by any means but he did take the long
view. That's considered old-fashioned today.

It's a debatable case for invoking Godwin, maybe?

My point was simply that I'm not glorifying him.

I always thought that the best way was to let the businesses do their
thing as much as possible, with a light touch. The time for intervention
is when the business threatens the environment, employee rights (such as
there are any) or of course engaging in illegal activities, which there
will always be some companies willing to do that. And of course the
monopoly problems.

Of course - the devil is in the details, though. How much environmental
threat is OK? What rights do employees really have?

Sure. We have a local case in which a massive amount of known Iron
Pyrite rock was dumped in a small valley with a stream running along the
bottom of the valley. The valley is all filled in now. The predictable
happened, and we now have a massive acid drainage problem that will kill
many tourist frequented streams and will probably sterilize the creeks
it runs into and construction on the highway has been stopped, and we
have a real mess on our hands.

Who dumped the bad rock?

Not much of a gray area there I think. And we can keep busy enough with

the blatant cases that we don't have to go after Joe six-pack and his
Sunday BBQ or his lawnmower.

Of course! That's the kind of details I'm talking about.

OTOH, one of the excuses given by industry is that environmental concerns cost
too much.

Martha and her bookie...I mean broker...got convicted, didn't they?

Here's a datapoint for ya: The USA imported 57% of the petroleum used here
last
year, up from 56% in the previous year. Domestic production is down
slightly.
Even if the Alaskan refuge is drilled, it will be 10 years before full
production is reached there. Gasoline prices are already about $1.75 and
it's only March.

Some people are making a good profit.

Yup.

Meanwhile, SUV sales are at record levels and a process called TDP (Thermal
Depolymerization) is almost unheard of.

Wellll, you are partially correct. You lump SUV's as if they are all of

the Excursion/Suburban/Escalade type.

Many of them are.

And that is wrong. I just bought
an SUV that gets in the 20's in town, and low 30's on the highway. It's
downright tiny by comparison, and is a very responsible vehicle as far
as resources go.

Sure - but how many of the big ones are sold for every responsible one? And how
many are driven as commuting vehicles and status symbols rather than because
their capabilities are really needed?

And I don't think that any of the Bio fuel options are viable or even
desirable. To see what I mean, replacement of even a tiny fraction of
what we use now in fossil fuel will take a lot of biofuel, and how much
can we make?

TDP isn't biofuel.

The tragedy of the biofuels is this:

America decides that we should go ethanol in a big way. Lots of corn
and other sources are grown for fermentation. After all, this will use
up that silly surplus, right?

Nope.

Only then it's no longer surplus. There would be a lot of pressure to
grow more and more of the raw materials. Have you seen what has happened
to much of the great plains lately? Salt desert, and besides that, the
aquifer is not being recharged except at a very slow rate.

Ethanol has other problems, too, such as poor performance at low temperatures.
TDP is something completely different.

Now when push comes to shove, and population starts to strain our
ability to produce food, you make the decision. Food or fuel? Who drives
and who dies?

Exactly.

Point is, there's no single simple answer. Instead, we need a coordinated
approach on many fronts. Efficiency - conservation - recycling - new technology
- infrastructure. Most of all, changes in how we live.

How do we get folks to take the long view again?

It will probably take running out of/low on resources of one kind or
the other. Like the above.

Unfortunately, you may be right.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:



Exactly, he saw that by looking at the longterm, his overall total profits
would be enhanced. He wanted a longterm, stable income than a quick buck.


And the most amazing thing is that with just that outlook, we not only
stabilize the situation, but we preserve the best part of how our
econmmic system works.



Henry Ford wasn't a paragon of virtue by any means but he did take the long
view. That's considered old-fashioned today.

It's a debatable case for invoking Godwin, maybe?


My point was simply that I'm not glorifying him.

Despite his reprehensible support for the N***s, he did know how to
sell cars and keep his people pretty well satisfied.


I always thought that the best way was to let the businesses do their
thing as much as possible, with a light touch. The time for intervention
is when the business threatens the environment, employee rights (such as
there are any) or of course engaging in illegal activities, which there
will always be some companies willing to do that. And of course the
monopoly problems.

Of course - the devil is in the details, though. How much environmental
threat is OK? What rights do employees really have?

Sure. We have a local case in which a massive amount of known Iron
Pyrite rock was dumped in a small valley with a stream running along the
bottom of the valley. The valley is all filled in now. The predictable
happened, and we now have a massive acid drainage problem that will kill
many tourist frequented streams and will probably sterilize the creeks
it runs into and construction on the highway has been stopped, and we
have a real mess on our hands.


Who dumped the bad rock?

The company making the road. My fault, I reread my post and didn't made
that clear at all. It was part of a large road building project. One
portion of it included basically lopping of the top of a mountain, and
filling in a small valley next to it to even out the terrain.


Not much of a gray area there I think. And we can keep busy enough with


the blatant cases that we don't have to go after Joe six-pack and his
Sunday BBQ or his lawnmower.


Of course! That's the kind of details I'm talking about.

OTOH, one of the excuses given by industry is that environmental concerns cost
too much.

Oh, they do cost! But we have this warped mentality that some groups
are exempt from responsibility. If we wreck a large part of say the
tourist and vacation and vacation product industry in our area, we lose
all that money. And it's so much more money than would have been spent
by doing the job correctly in the first place. The little stream
connects into prime *native* fishing stream, a prime bass fishing stream
and a large lake heavily used for recreation.

My folks taught me that if it costs too much - don't do it.


Martha and her bookie...I mean broker...got convicted, didn't they?

Here's a datapoint for ya: The USA imported 57% of the petroleum used here
last
year, up from 56% in the previous year. Domestic production is down
slightly.
Even if the Alaskan refuge is drilled, it will be 10 years before full
production is reached there. Gasoline prices are already about $1.75 and
it's only March.

Some people are making a good profit.


Yup.


Meanwhile, SUV sales are at record levels and a process called TDP (Thermal
Depolymerization) is almost unheard of.

Wellll, you are partially correct. You lump SUV's as if they are all of


the Excursion/Suburban/Escalade type.


Many of them are.


And that is wrong. I just bought
an SUV that gets in the 20's in town, and low 30's on the highway. It's
downright tiny by comparison, and is a very responsible vehicle as far
as resources go.


Sure - but how many of the big ones are sold for every responsible one? And how
many are driven as commuting vehicles and status symbols rather than because
their capabilities are really needed?

The Excursion has been canceled you know. The monsters really aren't
selling that well anymore


And I don't think that any of the Bio fuel options are viable or even
desirable. To see what I mean, replacement of even a tiny fraction of
what we use now in fossil fuel will take a lot of biofuel, and how much
can we make?


TDP isn't biofuel.

Is that a definition thing Jim? The feed stock is certainly
biologically based. And it's a good process, that simply uses offal to
make it's goop.

On a small scale, it can be helpful, but I still believe that it is
insufficient on a large scale. Although maybe...... Soylent oil? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Exactly, he saw that by looking at the longterm, his overall total profits
would be enhanced. He wanted a longterm, stable income than a quick buck.

And the most amazing thing is that with just that outlook, we not only
stabilize the situation, but we preserve the best part of how our
econmmic system works.

Henry Ford wasn't a paragon of virtue by any means but he did take the long
view. That's considered old-fashioned today.

I always thought that the best way was to let the businesses do their
thing as much as possible, with a light touch. The time for intervention
is when the business threatens the environment, employee rights (such as
there are any) or of course engaging in illegal activities, which there
will always be some companies willing to do that. And of course the
monopoly problems.

Of course - the devil is in the details, though. How much environmental threat
is OK? What rights do employees really have?

Martha and her bookie...I mean broker...got convicted, didn't they?

And her stock is now dropping thru the floor which is impacting all
the little folk who put savings into pieces of her empires, layoffs
will ensue, etc. OYeah, the feds "won" this one big. But who is
getting *really* spanked? Martha? Ha! As if. Ashcroft & Co. strike
again.


Here's a datapoint for ya: The USA imported 57% of the petroleum used here last
year, up from 56% in the previous year. Domestic production is down slightly.
Even if the Alaskan refuge is drilled, it will be 10 years before full
production is reached there. Gasoline prices are already about $1.75 and it's
only March.

Meanwhile, SUV sales are at record levels and a process called TDP (Thermal
Depolymerization) is almost unheard of.

TDP is another scam.

"This is classic pseudoscience - bordering on fraudulent!

FROM Discovery article May 03 :

"Thermal depolymerization, Appel [the guy who built the TDP pilot
plant in Philly] says, has proved to be 85 percent energy efficient
for complex feedstocks, such as turkey offal: "That means for every
100 Btus in the feedstock, we use only 15 Btus to run the process."

HOWEVER

"Their energy numbers are [highly] specious. They give efficiency as
the energy content of the input waste over the energy use. That's
flat-out misleading. They should tell us usable energy of the output
fuel. That's all the matters. We do not rate coal plants by the energy
of the coal they burn, after all, all we care about is the output.
This little evasion suggests that they are not being completely honest
in their entire analysis." (Bonehead at Metafilter.com)

An actual [honest] measure of TDP efficiency would contrast usable
energy content of the OUTPUT (not of the inputs) to the energy
required to drive the reaction/process.

"[This] is called marketing. Anybody selling anything has an interest
in convincing you that it will give you eternal life and the Buddha's
ten secrets of personal enlightenment. Their energy estimate is so
dishonest that it hardly seems useful to give it any more time. A
100-BTU chicken couldn't possibly yield more than a few BTU's of
useable fuel, a small percentage of which could actually be converted
into useable energy. It's probably better to just heat your home by
burning the chicken." {Atlantic Online post}

WRT Economics:

"If the New, Improved Poo Fuel and OPEC oil both come to market at
$30/barrel or so, the only difference will be in the profit margin for
Poo Energy Co. " {metafilter.com post}

This is NOT new. Chemistry is chemisty, period. It sure looks like a
pyrolytic process to me, even though they've given it a snazzy new
name. Their comparison chart also sets up pyrolysis as a straw man --
pyrolysis can also handle slurries,liquids, etc. and yields highly
uniform products. So this appears to be 'fancy'[read: hyped,
creatively marketed] pyrolysis to me. Also appears to be a 'classic'
example of "research" finding the results they want to find. Virtually
all experimental design (methodology, instrumentation, analytical
tools) are carefully chosen (crafted) to identify the expected
outcome. Choices are directed by prejudice - in this case, economic.
Given sufficient data, statistics can be employed to 'prove' any
theorum. Unless someone can tell me what I'm missing, of course...

"Most men think that they think, but what they are actually doing is
rearranging their prejudice"(Bertrand Russell)

Get a grip folks! TANSTAAFL

Posted by: dr mac at April 26, 2003 02:09 PM"

How do we get folks to take the long view again?

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


Martha and her bookie...I mean broker...got convicted, didn't they?

And her stock is now dropping thru the floor which is impacting all
the little folk who put savings into pieces of her empires, layoffs
will ensue, etc. OYeah, the feds "won" this one big. But who is
getting *really* spanked? Martha? Ha! As if. Ashcroft & Co. strike
again.

Exactly. So what's you're solution - let her go?

Here's a datapoint for ya: The USA imported 57% of the petroleum used here
last
year, up from 56% in the previous year. Domestic production is down
slightly.
Even if the Alaskan refuge is drilled, it will be 10 years before full
production is reached there. Gasoline prices are already about $1.75 and
it's only March.

Meanwhile, SUV sales are at record levels and a process called TDP (Thermal
Depolymerization) is almost unheard of.

TDP is another scam.

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly not something to bet the bank on.

"This is classic pseudoscience - bordering on fraudulent!

Sez who? You a ChemE too?

FROM Discovery article May 03 :

"Thermal depolymerization, Appel [the guy who built the TDP pilot
plant in Philly] says, has proved to be 85 percent energy efficient
for complex feedstocks, such as turkey offal: "That means for every
100 Btus in the feedstock, we use only 15 Btus to run the process."

HOWEVER

"Their energy numbers are [highly] specious. They give efficiency as
the energy content of the input waste over the energy use. That's
flat-out misleading. They should tell us usable energy of the output
fuel. That's all the matters. We do not rate coal plants by the energy
of the coal they burn, after all, all we care about is the output.
This little evasion suggests that they are not being completely honest
in their entire analysis." (Bonehead at Metafilter.com)

"Bonehead"?

An actual [honest] measure of TDP efficiency would contrast usable
energy content of the OUTPUT (not of the inputs) to the energy
required to drive the reaction/process.

No, not really. See below.

"[This] is called marketing. Anybody selling anything has an interest
in convincing you that it will give you eternal life and the Buddha's
ten secrets of personal enlightenment. Their energy estimate is so
dishonest that it hardly seems useful to give it any more time. A
100-BTU chicken couldn't possibly yield more than a few BTU's of
useable fuel, a small percentage of which could actually be converted
into useable energy. It's probably better to just heat your home by
burning the chicken." {Atlantic Online post}

Has this person actually investigated the process?

WRT Economics:

"If the New, Improved Poo Fuel and OPEC oil both come to market at
$30/barrel or so, the only difference will be in the profit margin for
Poo Energy Co. " {metafilter.com post}

Well, sort of.

$ per barrel is the only measure that will really stand up in the real world.
It doesn't matter if the TDP process
is 9% or 90% efficient in terms of BTU, what matters is the final cost of the
finished product in dollars per barrel or BTU or ccf. And that will be proven
or disproven by the plants already in service (the turkey plant in the Midwest)
and others in development.

This is NOT new. Chemistry is chemisty, period. It sure looks like a
pyrolytic process to me, even though they've given it a snazzy new
name. Their comparison chart also sets up pyrolysis as a straw man --
pyrolysis can also handle slurries,liquids, etc. and yields highly
uniform products. So this appears to be 'fancy'[read: hyped,
creatively marketed] pyrolysis to me. Also appears to be a 'classic'
example of "research" finding the results they want to find. Virtually
all experimental design (methodology, instrumentation, analytical
tools) are carefully chosen (crafted) to identify the expected
outcome. Choices are directed by prejudice - in this case, economic.
Given sufficient data, statistics can be employed to 'prove' any
theorum. Unless someone can tell me what I'm missing, of course...

It's a combination of temperature and pressure, plus water, that allegedly do
the breakdown. Again, the devil is in the details.

"Most men think that they think, but what they are actually doing is
rearranging their prejudice"(Bertrand Russell)

Get a grip folks! TANSTAAFL

Posted by: dr mac at April 26, 2003 02:09 PM"

"dr mac" huh?

Maybe TDP works, maybe it doesn't, the obvious measure is given above. Of
course if a company has 200 tons of turkey offal per day to dispose of, they're
going to pay the TDP folks just to get rid of it. And if something useful can
be made from for a competitive price, so much the better. Same for sewage
sludge and old plastic, etc.

But even if TDP works as advertised, it's not the entire answer because it will
take decades to bring enough plants online *and* there may not be enough
suitable feedstock meet the demand. (imagine - not enough waste?)

25 or so years ago a ChemE friend of mine did her master's thesis on shale oil
recovery. Developed a process that would get good-quality feedstock from oil
shales of the type that are all over the Rockies. Worked quite well, and was
clean to boot. Only problem was that the resulting oil would cost about
$45/barrel to extract - and that was in 1980 dollars. Figure $60-80/barrel
today.

How do we get folks to take the long view again?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Exactly, he saw that by looking at the longterm, his overall total
profits
would be enhanced. He wanted a longterm, stable income than a quick
buck.

And the most amazing thing is that with just that outlook, we not only
stabilize the situation, but we preserve the best part of how our
econmmic system works.

Henry Ford wasn't a paragon of virtue by any means but he did take the
long
view. That's considered old-fashioned today.

It's a debatable case for invoking Godwin, maybe?

My point was simply that I'm not glorifying him.

Despite his reprehensible support for the N***s, he did know how to
sell cars and keep his people pretty well satisfied.

And all those Willow Run B-24s....

I always thought that the best way was to let the businesses do their
thing as much as possible, with a light touch. The time for intervention
is when the business threatens the environment, employee rights (such as
there are any) or of course engaging in illegal activities, which there
will always be some companies willing to do that. And of course the
monopoly problems.

Of course - the devil is in the details, though. How much environmental
threat is OK? What rights do employees really have?

Sure. We have a local case in which a massive amount of known Iron
Pyrite rock was dumped in a small valley with a stream running along the
bottom of the valley. The valley is all filled in now. The predictable
happened, and we now have a massive acid drainage problem that will kill
many tourist frequented streams and will probably sterilize the creeks
it runs into and construction on the highway has been stopped, and we
have a real mess on our hands.

Who dumped the bad rock?

The company making the road. My fault, I reread my post and didn't made

that clear at all. It was part of a large road building project. One
portion of it included basically lopping of the top of a mountain, and
filling in a small valley next to it to even out the terrain.

Sounds like lawsuit time and serious trouble for whoever did the signing-off.
Particularly the PEs involved.

Not much of a gray area there I think. And we can keep busy enough with
the blatant cases that we don't have to go after Joe six-pack and his
Sunday BBQ or his lawnmower.

Of course! That's the kind of details I'm talking about.

OTOH, one of the excuses given by industry is that environmental concerns
cost
too much.

Oh, they do cost! But we have this warped mentality that some groups
are exempt from responsibility. If we wreck a large part of say the
tourist and vacation and vacation product industry in our area, we lose
all that money. And it's so much more money than would have been spent
by doing the job correctly in the first place. The little stream
connects into prime *native* fishing stream, a prime bass fishing stream
and a large lake heavily used for recreation.

My folks taught me that if it costs too much - don't do it.

Again, the problem consists of getting the big picture and taking the long
view. One can imagine that the reason for the road in the first place was so
the tourist/vacation set could have easier access to the fishing and lake....

Martha and her bookie...I mean broker...got convicted, didn't they?

Here's a datapoint for ya: The USA imported 57% of the petroleum used here
last
year, up from 56% in the previous year. Domestic production is down
slightly.
Even if the Alaskan refuge is drilled, it will be 10 years before full
production is reached there. Gasoline prices are already about $1.75 and
it's only March.

Some people are making a good profit.

Yup.

Meanwhile, SUV sales are at record levels and a process called TDP
(Thermal
Depolymerization) is almost unheard of.

Wellll, you are partially correct. You lump SUV's as if they are all of
the Excursion/Suburban/Escalade type.

Many of them are.

And that is wrong. I just bought
an SUV that gets in the 20's in town, and low 30's on the highway. It's
downright tiny by comparison, and is a very responsible vehicle as far
as resources go.

Sure - but how many of the big ones are sold for every responsible one? And
how
many are driven as commuting vehicles and status symbols rather than
because
their capabilities are really needed?

The Excursion has been canceled you know. The monsters really aren't
selling that well anymore

That's good.

And I don't think that any of the Bio fuel options are viable or even
desirable. To see what I mean, replacement of even a tiny fraction of
what we use now in fossil fuel will take a lot of biofuel, and how much
can we make?

TDP isn't biofuel.

Is that a definition thing Jim? The feed stock is certainly
biologically based. And it's a good process, that simply uses offal to
make it's goop.

It's a big thing if what is now a disposal problem can be turned into a usable
product.

On a small scale, it can be helpful, but I still believe that it is
insufficient on a large scale. Although maybe...... Soylent oil? 8^)

bwaahaahaa!

But I agree that even if TDP works (both technically *and* economically), it's
only a piece of the puzzle and not a complete solution.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

(Bill Sohl wrote):

But in today's world, even telecom has cut back on training
expenses.

That is because they intend to get rid of every possible employee
whenever possible. Why would you train people that aren't going to be
working for you in a few years?

The military does it all the time!

Side note: These good folk could probably save money if they were to
get a bill passed requiring all Americans to learn Indian language in
school. That way they wouldn't have to train their new help to speak
English.

Which language of India?

Companies can not afford to support products for long terms
and they MUST keep coming out with the latest products
because if they don't, the consumer will pass them by.
The irony of non-support for older products is that in
some cases, cottage or niche companies are created
to fill the void if there is sufficient consumer interest.

This isn;t a new game. Back in the late 1950s, US automakers "redesigned"
their cars every year. Most of the "redesign" was cosmetic, not functional.
Their goal wasn't to make cars that would last - they wanted those who
were the
new-car buyers to come back into the dealerships every year. They almost
succeeded - at one point, the average new-car buyer was back every two
years, and it was very rare for a car to last 100,000 miles even with the
best of
care.

Yet today the average car hit 200K miles or more.

And the new car is so expensive that it darn well *better* make 200 K
miles. They have become waay too expensive. Did you know that they are
offering 7 year auto loans now? All the "innovative" techniques that the
companies had to do over the years to sell cars as the price went up is
reaching an end-game for them. Most people do not want to pay $500-$600
or more a month for a vehicle.

Are cars *really* more expensive, adjusted for inflation?

Back in 2001, my Honda Odyssey minivan cost about $26,000 new. How much did,
say, the classic Ford Country Squire station wagon with the woodlike sides cost
in 1964? How much has typical income increased in that time period?

I just paid it off, and it's got a lot more usable life in it. So the total
lifetime cost may be less in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Leasing looked good for a while, but of course you have no trade-in, and
the lease company doesn't really want you to trade the thing in, they
want you to buy-out. But oh those car payments!

All depends on a whole bunch of unknowns like residual value, interest rate,
repair cost, etc.

Look at the
ever newer, faster and more memory for PCs.

Not just memory but every part of the machine - processor, drives, etc.
However, these improvements are often done at the price of quality.

Huh? Based on what information do you make that statement?

Open up an old IBM PC, then open up a clone box built for cheap
performance. I can send you pix of some I have in my garage.

Agreed. But that's in large part because they are not meant to last that long.
And because enough people buy on price alone.

Meanwhile, folks like me cherrypick the trailing edge for pennies. This Amidon
350MHz box cost me a lot less than $100, and most of that was for the CD-ROM
burner and the modem.

Consider too that
a few years back, marketing considered anything under $300
to be an "impulse buy" (i.e. no real thought as to price vs value
is applied by the consumer).

A few years back, the Dow was near 12,000, the Federal budget was
balanced, Congress was trying to figure out how to spend the "peace
dividend",
unemployment *and* inflation were at record lows and a lot of folks I knew
were
talking about retiring at 55.

And Ahnold was a movie actor.

Your point?

You like it better this way?

I don't.

All changed now.

Your point?

Same question.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message

[snip]

Your point?

That something needs to be done.

One factor that hasn't been mentioned is the effect of societal
changes, particularly in the middle class.

40 years ago, it was typical for Dad to work and Mom to stay home with
the kids and they all lived a comfortable if not luxurious
middle-class existence. (Yes, there were plenty of exceptions, but as
a rule if Dad had a good job, Mom did not have to work outside the
home when the kids were small).

Today, two-career families are the rule rather than the exception, and
almost always by necessity. First it's to pay off their own
educations, then to afford a house, then kids, then the kid's
education, then retirement. And that's if they're lucky and all goes
well!

Much of it is due to changing expectations as to what is acceptable as a
standard of living. The typical family 40 years ago in the major
metropolitan areas either lived in an apartment or in an 800 sq. ft. house.
A family with a single income today can still afford an 800 sq ft house.
However that is now considered unacceptably small. They want a 1200 sq ft
house as a minimum. That is just one example of changing expectations that
have driven us to two-career families.

Dee,

800 square feet (or even 1200) is a very small house! Where do you get those
figures?

But you do have a point in that the typical middle-class houses of 40-50 years
ago were built to a different paradigm than today. Those houses typically were
built with very few closets and bathrooms, simple, tiny kitchens, no air
conditioning and maybe a 1 car garage. OTOH, basements, porches and attics were
much more common back then.

Another factor is the cost of running the house - maintenance, utilities,
insurance and taxes.

The big question is whether a comparable house in a comparable neighborhood
today is as affordable in total cost as 40-50 years ago.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

(Bill Sohl wrote):

But in today's world, even telecom has cut back on training
expenses.

That is because they intend to get rid of every possible employee
whenever possible. Why would you train people that aren't going to be
working for you in a few years?


The military does it all the time!

Ad they aren't so worried about bottom line profit.



Side note: These good folk could probably save money if they were to
get a bill passed requiring all Americans to learn Indian language in
school. That way they wouldn't have to train their new help to speak
English.


Which language of India?


Companies can not afford to support products for long terms
and they MUST keep coming out with the latest products
because if they don't, the consumer will pass them by.
The irony of non-support for older products is that in
some cases, cottage or niche companies are created
to fill the void if there is sufficient consumer interest.


This isn;t a new game. Back in the late 1950s, US automakers "redesigned"
their cars every year. Most of the "redesign" was cosmetic, not functional.
Their goal wasn't to make cars that would last - they wanted those who

were the

new-car buyers to come back into the dealerships every year. They almost
succeeded - at one point, the average new-car buyer was back every two
years, and it was very rare for a car to last 100,000 miles even with the

best of

care.

Yet today the average car hit 200K miles or more.

And the new car is so expensive that it darn well *better* make 200 K
miles. They have become waay too expensive. Did you know that they are
offering 7 year auto loans now? All the "innovative" techniques that the
companies had to do over the years to sell cars as the price went up is
reaching an end-game for them. Most people do not want to pay $500-$600
or more a month for a vehicle.


Are cars *really* more expensive, adjusted for inflation?

Back in 2001, my Honda Odyssey minivan cost about $26,000 new. How much did,
say, the classic Ford Country Squire station wagon with the woodlike sides cost
in 1964? How much has typical income increased in that time period?

I don't have statistics in front of me, but I do know that when I
started buying cars, a typical loan was 2 years. now they are doing 6
and seven year loans.


I just paid it off, and it's got a lot more usable life in it. So the total
lifetime cost may be less in inflation-adjusted dollars.

That's good to pay off a car in two years. Hopefully you got a good
trade in, or your payments were pretty steep. A 0 percent loan with no
down payment would be almost $1100 per month.


Leasing looked good for a while, but of course you have no trade-in, and
the lease company doesn't really want you to trade the thing in, they
want you to buy-out. But oh those car payments!


All depends on a whole bunch of unknowns like residual value, interest rate,
repair cost, etc.

I've leased two cars now, and did okay by both of them. For this go
round, I wanted to buy, and to do that, I spent 10K less for the new
vehicle than I did 5 years ago for my last one to keep the payments
reasonable.


Look at the
ever newer, faster and more memory for PCs.

Not just memory but every part of the machine - processor, drives, etc.
However, these improvements are often done at the price of quality.

Huh? Based on what information do you make that statement?

Open up an old IBM PC, then open up a clone box built for cheap
performance. I can send you pix of some I have in my garage.


Agreed. But that's in large part because they are not meant to last that long.
And because enough people buy on price alone.

The old IBM's were meant to last. One of these days maybe we'll
concentrate on writing good functional software and operatin systems
that actually work, and then we won't have to get new computers every
two years.


Meanwhile, folks like me cherrypick the trailing edge for pennies. This Amidon
350MHz box cost me a lot less than $100, and most of that was for the CD-ROM
burner and the modem.

I do both. I have the latest and greatest for some of my uses, and I'm
using an old P166 Thinkpad running Win95 for my rig computer. The old PC
laptops had very nice sound output, and were built well.


- Mike KB3EIA -