May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: George Conklin on 18 Oct 2009 21:37 "Larry Sheldon" <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7k14uvF36mirbU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Miles Bader wrote: > > Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >> The reason it will probably be less is because when > >> private industry is in charge, there is a strong financial incentive > >> to maximize efficiency - an incentive that simply does not exist when > >> the government is in charge of roads. > >> > >> In a truly free market, on a truly level field of competition, most > >> cost-effective mode of transport will will. > > > > That's not necessarily true. It's common for them to get stuck in local > > minima. Government intervention can help such situations (though of > > course it doesn't always do so). > > In a truly free market, there is no Government Intervention. If there > is government intervention there is no free market of any sort. Wrong. Governments preserve free enterprise by making sure you don't have a monopoly, like Blue Cross and Blue Shield got to be because they have an exemption from the rules against monopolies.
From: gpsman on 18 Oct 2009 22:16 On Oct 18, 8:50 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > "gpsman" <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote in message > > news:9636bdd4-7471-42d0-8a97-1a305e1d2051(a)m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > Describe the method/s by which you determined the damage was caused by > trucks and not by defects in material and workmanship. > > *Potholes and cracking in roads are generally not caused by passenger cars, > not pickup trucks, not even SUV's. Then what is their cause in those roads not traveled by truck? > Transit buses and big rig trucks can do > the most damage. What's "damage" and what's "normal wear and tear"? > However, transit buses usually use HOV lanes or their own > designated bus lanes on high traffic metro area roads, so their damage is > usually limited to bus stops and transit stations. Usually? That's nonsense. > Therefore, the conclusion > is obvious--big rig trucks are universally the sole cause of major road > damage involving potholes and road cracking along significant distances of > road. You have failed to account for defects in material and workmanship. > > The roads > > in bufu aren't even going to be half as well built and certainly where > > someone is far far away from anything. > > You can say that again, but you still won't have said anything. > > * It means that trucks do even more damage to roads in distant/remote areas > vs. more congested metro areas, since roads in distant/remote areas are > generally not built as well as in high traffic metro areas. That's ridiculous. Distant/remote areas tend to be agricultural in nature, for one, and they can't all be crop dusters. And I'm pretty sure states have pavement standards relative to the expected traffic, since I think in most instances they pay or provide most funds for it, and to maintain it. > > And all I have to do to see a > > road unsuitable for a heavy truck traffic is look out the window. > > Are trucks permitted? How about moving vans? > > * "Moving vans" are essentially big rig trucks from companies hired to move. > The maximum weight limits have remained constant since 1974 when they > were raised to 80K# from the1956 level of 73,280#. > > About when would you say it might be reasonable to conclude that even > if trucks damage pavement the pavement is inadequately spec'd relative > to the allowable weight standards? > > * Only at the point where passenger cars, pickup trucks, and SUV's start > making potholes and cracks in the road. So... 1899? > At that point, the road construction > is clearly substandard for any vehicular travel. When they *start* making potholes and cracks...? Seems like we might still be able to get a D9 in there. > Otherwise, the blame can > still be cast solely upon the big rig trucks for the road damage. So, if not for trucks a road of current average construction would last forever. I like you, you're silly. ----- - gpsman
From: 1100GS_rider on 18 Oct 2009 22:21 Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2009-10-18, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Lots of the loads I have hauled were car and truck parts--typically JIT, > > Just too late inventory systems are simply nonense that shifts the cost > around and create stress where none should be. The idea was for the > company doing the final assembly to decrease inventory costs. However, > the suppliers making the parts often end up inventorying them anyway > because of their own production capacities. The cost of that inventory > is then passed on in the part cost. The major component of inventory holding costs is the cost of capital for the dollars tied up in inventory. So the lower the inventory is held in the value-added chain, the cheaper it is to hold. JIT is globally optimal in terms of the cost of production.
From: hancock4 on 18 Oct 2009 23:21 On Oct 18, 4:58 pm, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The house I live in is way too big for my needs, but the California > asshats created a problem for me. When we sold the little bitty tract > house in Sunnyvale we got a grossly inflated price for it because of the > bizarre California notions. When we bought here we had to buy way more > than we needed (or can continue to maintain) to avoid some huge huge > capital gains losses--the fact that the inflated dollars weren't worth > very much is of no interest. I thought when an individual person sells his own home and profits from it, the profits are not taxed. It's only investment property that has capital gains. Further, capital gains are taxed at a far lower rate than say bank interest on a CD.
From: hancock4 on 18 Oct 2009 23:26
On Oct 18, 9:46 pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >The U.S. standard of living has progressed hugely. > > The current U.S. standard of living is unsustainable. It is based on > the wobbly foundation of cheap gasoline, "free" roads, and "free" > parking. No one has a crystal ball. But presently the US is _increasingly_ dependent on foreign countries to bankroll its growing debt. At some point those countries will become saturated with dollars and not want dollars anymore. That will mean the dollar will become much weaker, which will cause all sorts of economic problems, like it not being internationally respected as it is for the time being. The cost of motor fuel will skyrocket. |