![]() |
|
Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 | |||
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
Quote:
Quote:
Apparently, clubbing together resources and influence in order to take control of an entire industry is socialism if those doing it are also those who work in that industry, but free market capitalism if those doing it are the employers in that industry. Ok, I will go with that to a degree, since one of the key notions of socialist communism is that the workers should own the means of production (not that they do in this scenario, but they have been able to exert control over entry to that production). But why is it ok for the employer class to club together into ever larger and more powerful organisations that give them much greater levels of control over every aspect of their industry (and indeed the economic and political system in which it takes place), and dictate wage levels that cripple whole communities, states, countries in order to defend their own interests; but it is not ok that the workforce engage in combination to defend their interests? If workers enter into the market as 'free agents' with their labour and skills as their property to bargain with, why shouldn't they have the freedom to combine their strength in order to have a stronger property in the market? The corporation/business is owned by someone and they have a right to engage in combination with other corporations/businesses to strengthen their property and value in the market. Unions do not rob them of the value of their property, they defend the value of their own.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by DanaC; 07-19-2013 at 05:51 AM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Quibble dep't:
Quote:
Interesting dep't: Indy engines get 3 mpg, are rebuilt at 1200 miles, and cost about $1M a year per car to lease. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
I never paid close attention to the Indy rules. Are car makers allowed to try to improve the MPG of Indy engines? One extra gas stop can mean the difference between 1st place and not even being in the top 10.
An improvement to 5 MPG would mean you could win the race. Especially if you can make your tires last longer. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
Those engines must have less displacement than any car in today's parking lots. Not because of race track rules. Because tinier engines are necessary for innovative racing machines. Why did Honda dominate in race circuits? Because Honda innovated. Why does Detroit suffer? Because Detroit industries were dominated by rich and dumb business school grads who thought the Renaissance Center (expensive offices for the rich) would magically revive Detroit. They spent big bucks on what they understood (ie corporate jets for all executives, crappy 1960 technology engines, cost controls, private elevators so that management need not see the riff-raff in the lobby, welfare for the rich). They were so mentally naive as to ignore what was important. Even Ross Perot who was paid $billions to leave because he was predicting destruction so long ago. The ignorant hate reality. Which even explains the Rennaissance Center. Michael Moore defined this problem decades earlier by documenting job destruction in Flint Michigan. Unions did not create that disaster. Bean counters playing money games (with pension funds and 0% financing) and stifling innovation created that disaster. Detriot is another example of how business school graduates enrich themselves by destroying jobs. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
They don't get to do anything to the engine. The sanctioning body selects what goes into the cars. Prior to 2011 they were all identical, now it seems there are two engines available, a H*nda and a Chevy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IndyCar...012-present.29 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
2011 specs around 186 hp per liter, 2012 specs around 295 hp per liter.
Maximized for efficiency in a very specialized application. Comparisons should not be drawn between engines for practical applications. 295 hp per liter seems efficient. 3 mpg does not. 1200 mean miles between failure does not. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
Why is Detroit bankrupt? Look at the region's major product. Its engines remained lowest performance. It stifled innovation throughout the product (not just the engine) in the name of cost controls. It feared fundamental product thinking advocated by innovators such as W. E. Deming. Its products would even rust out in two years. So they invented myths about 'more salt on today's roads' rather than paint those interior steel surfaces. To coverup their lies, they even underfunded the pension funds. And invented more lies to mask that fraud. So of course so many employees had to flee Detroit. Detroit's major industries were even blaming their employees rather than ignorant and corrupt management. Another example of 85% of all problems directly traceable to top management. Since that top management said there was plenty of blame to go around, then 99% of all problems were directly traceable to those people educated and acting to destroy American jobs. Bankruptcy is only reporting today on a problem that existed even 20 and 30 years ago. Same problems so accurately defined by Michael Moore's "Roger and Me". Problems continued because the problem makers - corporate leaders who stifled innovation - denied a problem even existed. They even said GM had no problems in 2007. That the only problem was the economy. These job destroyers blamed government, Japanese, the economy, education system, unions ... and even United and American Airlines for being too unsafe for corporate executives to fly on. Detroit is simply another victim of what is taught in the business schools. Those low performance V-8s still found in crappy products are but another reason for Detroit's bankruptcy. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Goon Squad Leader
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
|
OF COURSE, those engines are designed for a knife-edge-narrow purpose, to propel the vehicle containing it faster than the others just like it over the course of about five hundred miles, and other factors be damned, including fuel economy. 3 mpg is good/bad only in a given context. In the context of driving to work, that's berry, berry bad. In the context of a quarter-mile unlimited funny car, who gives a shit?
Even measuring hp/liter is a totally made up parameter. Let me ask you: which is "more efficient": a car with an engine that makes 186 hp/liter that wins the race or a car with an engine that makes 295 hp/liter that loses the same race? One puts all the resources into a winning effort, another puts all the resources into a losing effort. Which is more efficient? Context people, context.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Goon Squad Leader
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
|
Meanwhile, back in the real world, specifically Lansing, Michigan:
Quote:
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Goon Squad Leader
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
|
meanwhile, back in detroit engine land:
tw, calculate this one, if you will, please. maestro:
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
I don't have any spec numbers for 1963 models. That is a completely different technology - a turbine. Its performance numbers (like numbers for Diesels, Wankels, turbo charged, and supercharge engines) would be completely different.
However sometime in that period, Corvette (for a short time) released a 70 Hp / liter engine. The famous expression was a 350-350. That's about the time that bean counters began replacing car guys. Stifled innovation began with a new top management tool - cost controls. We know why Honda engines more often win races. Higher performance across a wider range. In a short stint with Nascar, every Ford mechanic would brag about their higher performance engine. The number was routine with many Ford cars. Due to superior performance, Fords had 50 more horsepower. BTW, performance and efficiency are not same. And are not orthogonal. Why are Detroit designed products so unprofitable? They even still manufacturer V-8 engines. Detroit products are that technically obsolete. Due to cost controls, Detroit products are some of the most expensive to build. Why would anyone make a hybrid where its gas motor cannot even recharge its battery? A classic example of how widespread stupidity is in and around the Renaissance Center. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Goon Squad Leader
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
FYI, the Germans seem to be running V8s in Mercs and BMWs and even a few Audis.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
In many cases, V-8s only exist to market to fools who associate more noise or a bigger engine with personal superiority. An ego thing. What was a worst engine in Toyota's domestic history? That V-8 found in the Tundra. Companies that are profitable are not selling 1960 technology products. Detroit is a victim of four automakers who stopped innovating. Only Ford recently restarted innovation. Detroit has no choice but to downsize. What choices were left other than bankruptcy? Renaissance Towers were full of Detroit's rich who remained in denial. They destroyed American productivity while blaming the employees (using socialism myths). Those who destroyed Detroit were practicing classic communism. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|