From: Dave C. on
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
hancock4(a) wrote:

> On Oct 18, 9:46 pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)> 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 point was sometime last year. Keep up.

> 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 U.S. dollar is internationally ridiculed right now. It is no longer
the international standard currency. I don't know what the replacement
is going to be, but the dollar has been FIRED already...the replacement
for the dollar has not been "hired" yet. But interviews are in

> The cost of motor fuel will skyrocket.

If that motor fuel is based on "fossil" fuels, most definitely. -Dave

Dave C. <noway(a)nohow.never>
From: Brent on
On 2009-10-18, Dave C. <noway(a)nohow.never> wrote:
>> Destroyed as in unsuitable for traffic. The pavement wasN'T crumbled, it
>> was waved, distorted, as if it were turned to a fluid and then frozen.
>> large rutted depressions several inches displaced from nominal. I
>> don't think bicycles did that.
> No, that sounds like frost heeves (SP?) -Dave

These were not frost heaves. Frost heaves crack the pavement and send
large slabs up or down. This was the result of weight squeezing pavement
out from under it.

From: Brent on
On 2009-10-19, 1100GS_rider <bmw1100gs(a)> wrote:
> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)> wrote:
>> On 2009-10-18, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)> 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.

The supplier that is to remain in business adds in the cost of
having the building space, their money being tied up, the labor to
manage the inventory, and all other costs associated with it. All their
customer 'saves' in the end is the cost of having their money tied up in
the supplier's profit margin. Maybe not even that because smart
suppliers will also include the cost of not seeing their profits
until later. But now instead of just the final assembler having
wearhouse space and people managing inventory, both companies do.

Then weather, traffic, or other problems cause lines to shut down. Even
more cost.

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.

From: Brent on
On 2009-10-19, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)> wrote:
> George Conklin wrote:
>> "Larry Sheldon" <lfsheldon(a)> wrote in message
>> news:7k14uvF36mirbU1(a)
>>> Miles Bader wrote:
>>>> Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)> 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.
> In a free market, a "monopoly", by definition, can not form.

A monopoly might form without government intervention but it cannot last
without it. It's the same with a cartel. When the government isn't there
to (help) prevent new businesses from starting or businesses cheating on
the cartel's rules monopolies and cartels fall apart.

From: Brent on
On 2009-10-19, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>> "gpsman" <gpsman(a)> wrote in message
>>> LOL. I've seen major routes (as in US highways and local arterial roads)
>>> where the pavement has been destroyed by heavy truck traffic.

>> 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,

I am talking about pavement that has actually flowed out from under a
heavy weight being applied to it. It looks something like this:
but much worse in depth and rise. That image was damage from buses.

other images:

I've seen far worse that both of those where heavy trucks stopped and
then turned.