May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" on 25 Oct 2009 16:23 "Otto Yamamoto" <roscoe(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote in message news:4ae4ad61$0$31260$607ed4bc(a)cv.net... > On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:40:18 -0400, Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick wrote: > >> The current government represents me about as much as the last one >> did. >> >> Maybe we can revisit your illusions in a year and see how you're >> doing. > > Better do a quick re-think Hans. 'Popeye' sounds more like an actual > conservative; perhaps even a right-libertarian-rather the opposite of the > American Fascist that the media portray as conservative. Smart man, Otto. I'm a socially (very) liberal and militarily conservative Libertarian. -- -- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
From: Larrybud on 29 Oct 2009 10:00 chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in news:7fq0e51916um6fsfctbcv9hmlusb4b5r3q(a)4ax.com: > Larrybud wrote: > >>> "Monopoly power in the market" DOES NOT EQUAL "complete, 100% >>> inability to obtain an alternative" >> >>So in your world, Mono <> 1 > > Simpleton. I guess 1+1 = 3, since 1 doesn't really equal 1, either!! It's your math, not mine.
From: 1100GS_rider on 31 Oct 2009 14:14 Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > It's an illusion. The cost is still in there. The cost isn't there until the value added step is taken. But you know that, and you're just being disingenuous.
From: 1100GS_rider on 31 Oct 2009 14:15 <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Oct 18, 11:55 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I am unconviced that JIT is more than shuffling numbers around so it > > looks like a savings so someone gets a promotion. The burden is just > > shifted to reduce part cost later. > > That is correct. > > In the short run it looks good on the purchaser's balance sheet > because the supplier is forced to eat the costs to stay in business. > But in the long term the supplier will either raise its prices or go > out of business. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Or, the supplier could adopt JIT. And, JIT supplier-purchaser relationships are longer term and more stable than non-JIT relationships. You need to be genuine trading partners, exchanging data routinely, for it to work for BOTH sides.
From: Brent on 31 Oct 2009 14:46
On 2009-10-31, 1100GS_rider <bmw1100gs(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> It's an illusion. The cost is still in there. > > The cost isn't there until the value added step is taken. > > But you know that, and you're just being disingenuous. I see you're not only rude responding to a post that was way too long ago but also ignorant of how JIT actually works. I've worked two places that have used JIT to one degree or another. When I call up suppliers for prototype work, modifications, etc. They have the parts in stock to work from. Why? Because the set up costs to run all these small batches for JIT is just stupid. So they make larger runs and just inventory it until the delivery date. The inventory cost is relocated, it didn't go away. |