kmfenaughty 0 #51 July 15, 2009 Quote I'm waiting for that time just before the government sells off its interest in GM to cash in. Should be around Sept/Oct. Good luck with that plan .... when was the last time the GOVERNMENT EVER got out of ANYTHING they had there sticky little fingers in 99% of the people on this earth are sheep ... dare to be different Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #52 July 15, 2009 Well there was that one whorehouse they took over. But then they fired all the hookers and Barney Frank ran it by hand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #53 July 15, 2009 QuoteI guess you'd be satisfied with a $170 car, then, since that is your share of the taxpayers' loans. Wht number is the $170 per person based off of? Population or actual taxpayers?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #54 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteI guess you'd be satisfied with a $170 car, then, since that is your share of the taxpayers' loans. Wht number is the $170 per person based off of? Population or actual taxpayers? Government revenues belong to the people as a whole. You don't have any special claim on the amount you paid in.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #55 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI guess you'd be satisfied with a $170 car, then, since that is your share of the taxpayers' loans. Wht number is the $170 per person based off of? Population or actual taxpayers? Government revenues belong to the people as a whole. You don't have any special claim on the amount you paid in. If you're trying to apportion the "cost" of a government program, it's pretty transparent to reduce it by allocating some of that cost to people who make no financial contribution to it. The key word in your original quote was "taxpayers'", I think.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #56 July 15, 2009 Quote Quote Quote I guess you'd be satisfied with a $170 car, then, since that is your share of the taxpayers' loans. Wht number is the $170 per person based off of? Population or actual taxpayers? Government revenues belong to the people as a whole. You don't have any special claim on the amount you paid in. Claim? Hell, I know that $$$ I paid is long gone. I'm not treating it as an asset. Just wondered if that per person number was based off: * Total population (skewed very low) * Over 18 (skewed low) * Currently paying taxesStupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #57 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI guess you'd be satisfied with a $170 car, then, since that is your share of the taxpayers' loans. Wht number is the $170 per person based off of? Population or actual taxpayers? Government revenues belong to the people as a whole. You don't have any special claim on the amount you paid in. If you're trying to apportion the "cost" of a government program, it's pretty transparent to reduce it by allocating some of that cost to people who make no financial contribution to it. The key word in your original quote was "taxpayers'", I think., Did you think the money came from the Tooth Fairy? Or the Chinese? (oh wait...) Regardless, once in govt. hands it is ALL of ours.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #58 July 16, 2009 Quote Regardless, once in govt. hands it is ALL of ours. "From each according to their means..." ?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #59 July 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteEfficiency and low-cost do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. All else equal, they do. ...and...what, that's it? Prove it then. If China can build a widget for $100, but their process involves using human labor because there are so many Chinese, and they have to give people jobs (the joys of central planning), so the process takes 5 people to make, and since there is so much handling, the accuracy tolerances are within a few millimeters. Japan can build the same widget for $300, but their process involves one person, and computer aided assembly allowing for precise construction, tolerances within fractions of a millimeter. So, all else isn't equal. They aren't building the same widget, since the tolerances are significantly different. Go to a machine shop and ask to have a cube with 1.0 inch sides machined out of aluminum. Then ask to have a cube with 1.000 inch sides machined out of aluminum. Which is more expensive?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #60 July 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteEfficiency and low-cost do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. All else equal, they do. ...and...what, that's it? Prove it then. If China can build a widget for $100, but their process involves using human labor because there are so many Chinese, and they have to give people jobs (the joys of central planning), so the process takes 5 people to make, and since there is so much handling, the accuracy tolerances are within a few millimeters. Japan can build the same widget for $300, but their process involves one person, and computer aided assembly allowing for precise construction, tolerances within fractions of a millimeter. So, all else isn't equal. They aren't building the same widget, since the tolerances are significantly different. Go to a machine shop and ask to have a cube with 1.0 inch sides machined out of aluminum. Then ask to have a cube with 1.000 inch sides machined out of aluminum. Which is more expensive? Okay, I understand your point, but in an open market, all things are not equal. Agree or disagree?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #61 July 16, 2009 QuoteOkay, I understand your point, but in an open market, all things are not equal. Agree or disagree? Agreed, but that's straying from the topic of efficiency.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #62 July 16, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Efficiency and low-cost do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. All else equal, they do. ...and...what, that's it? Prove it then. If China can build a widget for $100, but their process involves using human labor because there are so many Chinese, and they have to give people jobs (the joys of central planning), so the process takes 5 people to make, and since there is so much handling, the accuracy tolerances are within a few millimeters. Japan can build the same widget for $300, but their process involves one person, and computer aided assembly allowing for precise construction, tolerances within fractions of a millimeter. So, all else isn't equal. They aren't building the same widget, since the tolerances are significantly different. Go to a machine shop and ask to have a cube with 1.0 inch sides machined out of aluminum. Then ask to have a cube with 1.000 inch sides machined out of aluminum. Which is more expensive? Okay, I understand your point, but in an open market, all things are not equal. Agree or disagree? Honestly, it depends if the UAW is involvedI wonder how things are going to work now that they are co-owners. Do you think they will be able to keep the "workers best interests" protected? Will Quality and affordability start working it's way onto the priority list? Or is Government Motors death just been prolonged?"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #63 July 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteOkay, I understand your point, but in an open market, all things are not equal. Agree or disagree? Agreed, but that's straying from the topic of efficiency. Here, I disagree, efficiency cannot be gauged when all factors are equal. It is those variables that increase/decrease overall efficiency, as well as cost.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #64 July 16, 2009 QuoteHere, I disagree, efficiency cannot be gauged when all factors are equal. It is those variables that increase/decrease overall efficiency, as well as cost. It is only when all other factors are equal or controlled for that efficiency can be analyzed.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #65 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteHere, I disagree, efficiency cannot be gauged when all factors are equal. It is those variables that increase/decrease overall efficiency, as well as cost. It is only when all other factors are equal or controlled for that efficiency can be analyzed. So, you're saying that in my widget example, if the tolerances were the same, but the processes different (five people vs. 1 plus computer) that efficiency could be then measured?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #66 July 17, 2009 QuoteSo, you're saying that in my widget example, if the tolerances were the same, but the processes different (five people vs. 1 plus computer) that efficiency could be then measured? The consumer could then compare the efficiencies. Price would be the metric. Of course, without any other competitors, a free market would allow the Chinese company to price their widget at ~$299, just low enough to keep the Japanese company from being able to compete, while producing $199 profit per widget. From the perspective of the respective countries, the Chinese company employs five people for one third the cost of employing one person by the Japanese company. From both perspectives, the Chinese company produces the widgets more efficiently.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #67 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo, you're saying that in my widget example, if the tolerances were the same, but the processes different (five people vs. 1 plus computer) that efficiency could be then measured? The consumer could then compare the efficiencies. Price would be the metric. Of course, without any other competitors, a free market would allow the Chinese company to price their widget at ~$299, just low enough to keep the Japanese company from being able to compete, while producing $199 profit per widget. From the perspective of the respective countries, the Chinese company employs five people for one third the cost of employing one person by the Japanese company. From both perspectives, the Chinese company produces the widgets more efficiently. That is certainly not the only way to measure efficiency, as all things do not reach that equality.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #68 July 21, 2009 QuoteGM broke records going through bankruptcy...40 days. Now emerged, 60% US Government Owned, 12% Canadian Government Owned, 20-ish% Union Owned, 10% Bondholder Owned...all for only $50B taxpayer dollars... The Camaro looks nice, but they won't get my business... It would be a cold day in hell when I bought a new care in any case, so their fiscal situation does not interest me much. I had a variety of Opels and Vauxhalls that were just great, and would be happy to have one. I was able to do a solid 220 km/h on the Autobahn, and the mileage was still better than a Hummer at 88 km/h. As far as the junk they build in the US of A, you can have it. Automatic transmissions should be outlawed, and people who can't drive a standard should take public transportation. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ypelchat 0 #69 July 22, 2009 Quote Automatic transmissions should be outlawed, and people who can't drive a standard should take public transportation...Winsor And people jumping out of good airplanes should be put into asylums... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #70 July 22, 2009 Quote Quote Automatic transmissions should be outlawed, and people who can't drive a standard should take public transportation...Winsor And people jumping out of good airplanes should be put into asylums... Clearly. We should all be jumping off cliffs. It's much safer. And when was the last time you heard about a cliff crashing?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #71 July 22, 2009 Quote Quote Automatic transmissions should be outlawed, and people who can't drive a standard should take public transportation...Winsor And people jumping out of good airplanes should be put into asylums... More like if you can't figure out how to open your reserve by yourself, you should jump tandem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
