Re: Not really CHANGE, Same Old Shit Already

On Nov 12, 7:27 pm, r15...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Nov 12, 1:06 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Nov 12, 10:28 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Imagine for a moment, a large diseased and dying redwood tree
surrounded by hundreds and thousands of little saplings of many
various species.  Apple trees, pine, walnut and even young redwoods..
If you had to supply resources (sunshine and water) to the large 200ft
redwood you might have to provide about 500 gallons a day of water to
sustain this tree.  Or alternatively you could provide a gallon a day
to 500 of these little tress and in a few years see which ones will
bear fruit, shade and nuts or lumber.

Not all of those little trees will make it but many of them will.  If
you’re trying to plan for the future, do you support (provide
resources) for a this one tree (that will most likely find itself in
the same position 10-20 years down the road – merely because of its
size) or do you support the 100s of little trees that promise growth
and diversity?

It’s pretty clear that, unless you are that large dying giant, you
vote to have the resources distributed to the many instead of the
one.  There is an optimum size to every living entity, whether it is a
tree, a human or a corporation.  Nature ultimately culls the
unnecessarily large or inefficient from the herds of its populations.
It’s a time proven and observable fact.

So why, at this time is the US Government putting so much effort into
supporting the dying giants whether they are General Motors, AIG or
other inefficient and unnecessarily large institutions?

There is no GROWTH in feeding resources to an entity that has already
exceeded its optimum size and efficiency.
Take for instance General Motors that for years and years persisted in
creating giant 2-3 ton SUVs instead of applying new ideas and
materials to create efficient and safe vehicles that could be afforded
by more people and use the same amount of resources to produce 3-4x
the ‘passenger miles’.  Instead of loading 300-400hp and 3 tons of
materials into a single vehicle, GM could have built 4 cars with 50hp
motors, composite materials and were thus light enough to take
advantage of new hybrid technologies and mainly powered by small
electric motors supplemented by solar and regenerative systems as a
part of the car.

On the sidelines, waiting for and dependent on the failure of GM are
1000’s of innovative entrepreneurs that will create, merge and grow
new technologies into the GMs of the future until ultimately they must
fail and fall aside to make way for the next generation of innovation
and initiative.

It’s a zero sum game with a slight interval between the death of GM
and other inefficient giants and the redistribution of the resources
(current GM employees, designers, subcontractors, suppliers, etc) to
the innovators and little saplings that we will harvest from in the
future and all share in the creation of.  We will always need x amount
of ‘transportation’ and only have y amount of resources to support
both the ‘passenger mile’ needs and the amount of resources that go
into each passenger mile.

We have been horribly wasteful on both an individual and national
level on both accounts.  Supporting GM, propping up the near dead just
prolongs our national agony and opens the door for more nimble nations
to benefit from our shortsightedness and attachment to the past.

If it’s about change and about time then we are not really changing at
all.

Dumbass -

That is all correct from an economic point of view, but politically
they have to prop it up because they propped up the financial
industry.

Slippery, slippery slope.

In normal times, GM would be left to the free market, but these aren't
normal times.

? They make money they are left to the market they start to keel
suddenly the market is broken and government has to "take an ownership
stake." Uh, no thanks. Why would anyone want to own a piece of that
steaming pile of losing proposition. Let it die and restructure the
whole thing with competent individuals, the govt. takes care of these
people one way or the other at this point. No blank check to Detroit/
UAW.

<snip>



Dumbass -


Go read my goddamm post before trying to refute me when I actually
agree with you.

I said it's politically impossible to let them die. That doesn't mean
that letting them die is the wrong thing to do. Populism and economic
theory rarely walk hand in hand.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: While you wernt looking they did it again.
    ... The country south of Olympic National Park looks like some of ... there is but even more shocking is how much logging there isn't. ... have to be in opposition to protection of natural resources. ... will look much like it did in the 1920's without a tree is site. ...
    (rec.outdoors.fishing.fly)
  • Re: Not really CHANGE, Same Old Shit Already
    ... If you had to supply resources to the large 200ft ... sustain this tree. ... size) or do you support the 100s of little trees that promise growth ... We will always need x amount ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Not really CHANGE, Same Old Shit Already
    ... If you had to supply resources to the large 200ft ... sustain this tree. ... Take for instance General Motors that for years and years persisted in ... by more people and use the same amount of resources to produce 3-4x ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Not really CHANGE, Same Old Shit Already
    ... If you had to supply resources to the large 200ft ... sustain this tree. ... Take for instance General Motors that for years and years persisted in ... by more people and use the same amount of resources to produce 3-4x ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Need working Treeview Code
    ... If the total amount of data in your treeview is relatively small (<500 ... performance by only loading branches of the tree when the user expands them. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.vjsharp)