May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: Brent on 19 Oct 2009 00:24 On 2009-10-18, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > Other recent articles, mentioned on this newsgroup on they came out, > was that motor vehicle usage taxes pay only a portion of road expenses > and general taxpayer funds were required to make up the difference. > (IIRC, the amounts ranged from as low as 60% to 85%). I don't know about PA but in IL and federally some tax money collected from fuel and other road usage is diverted to other things.
From: 1100GS_rider on 19 Oct 2009 00:25 Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2009-10-19, 1100GS_rider <bmw1100gs(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > 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. No. The supplier is also running JIT. Why not? > Then weather, traffic, or other problems cause lines to shut down. Even > more cost. Cheaper than paying the carrying cost for piles of inventory that won't be used for months. > I am unconviced that JIT is more than shuffling numbers around so it > looks like a savings so someone gets a promotion. That's because you don't understand the economics of operating a value added chain. > The burden is just > shifted to reduce part cost later. I have no idea what you're saying here. Keeping the inventory at the lowest value added point as long as possible is a big win for everybody.
From: Brent on 19 Oct 2009 00:29 On 2009-10-18, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Oct 18, 1:19�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> The railroads got considerable taxpayer money in the 19th century. > > Not true. Very true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railroad_Act That's just one act.
From: Brent on 19 Oct 2009 00:33 On 2009-10-18, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>Lincoln was big on subsidizing rail and didn't mind slavery. > Wha??? There would have been no war if all that Lincoln had to do was preserve slavery for the south to return. War has to be sold to people. People want a noble cause to fight for. Ending slavery filled that role for the union.
From: Brent on 19 Oct 2009 00:57
On 2009-10-19, 1100GS_rider <bmw1100gs(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2009-10-19, 1100GS_rider <bmw1100gs(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> 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. > > No. The supplier is also running JIT. Why not? He can't afford to be late and lose the business. Also his costs are dramatically increased by setting up and taking down tools and lines to make parts for different customers. Doing so for small batches is just plain stupid. The labor and lost manufacturing time will kill him. >> Then weather, traffic, or other problems cause lines to shut down. Even >> more cost. > Cheaper than paying the carrying cost for piles of inventory that won't > be used for months. I've worked in businesses where the sales are seasonal or are where the new model sells at it's best profit for a very short period of time. Line down can cost a huge amount that cannot be made up. The product simply isn't where it needs to be when it needs to be there because someone tried to shave a few pennies. It's saving pennies and losing hundreds or worse. >> I am unconviced that JIT is more than shuffling numbers around so it >> looks like a savings so someone gets a promotion. > That's because you don't understand the economics of operating a value > added chain. I understand it, but from a different perspective. A real one as opposed to a number shifter's. >> The burden is just >> shifted to reduce part cost later. > I have no idea what you're saying here. And you're saying I don't know about 'value added chains'? > Keeping the inventory at the > lowest value added point as long as possible is a big win for everybody. It's an illusion. The cost is still in there. It's just part of what is paid for the part instead. The cost just changes what column on the spread sheet it is in. Now it's mixed in with raw materials, labor, tooling, and other costs to make the physical part. So then some engineer has to find ways to make the same part cheaper or redesign to make it cheaper. The physical part is cheapened to reduce the piece part price back to where it was before the inventory costs got added to it. |