patrick.net

edvard2 says

Reality says

If you are referring to Dodge Intrepid (and the LH platform), then you are arguing for me: the buyout of AMC by Chrysler did not end the LH platform.

Quite the contrary actually, for if you were to read my previous response then you'd see that while yes- the AMC platform was the basis for the LH platform, that platform was itself used for decades, which further reinforces my previous statements

Either:

1. LH platform Gen1 was used from 1993-1997, Gen2 from 1998-2004, so barely 1 decade. or

2. Change of corporate ownership did not put an end to LH platform development.

Either way, your fear of end of the world if GM went bankrupt was quite unfounded.

edvard2 says

Nothing is ever new if you look back far enough. Even the electric car pre-dated the gasoline engine. The devil is in the details.

Way to try to back out of a previous assertion by making bland and generalized comments. You were previously trying to suggest that "Modular engineering" is something totally new and different from chassis design. A platform is a platform is a platform.

I did not try to back out of anything. It's absurd to think just because electric cars were made in 1899, somehow a carmaker today switching from gasoline to electric would not involve tools and engineering approach that are entirely different from what they were doing a few years before the switch.

edvard2 says

. For example, Ford made numerous versions of the "Windsor" family of engines that ranged from V6 and V8 models and in many cases the same components were used. As a classic car owner myself I can attest to this, seeing as how many parts that will fit a 302 also happens to fit the 289, 351, and others

Also not true. The windsor engines were 221 to 351 v8's. There was never a v6 windsor. They weren't at all modular. It was just the same block with bigger bores and longer strokes with a higher deck for the 351.

Ford's current "modular" engine series 4.6 v8 to 6.8 v10 doesn't refer to modular engine design, it refers to the manufacturing process.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

How many new computers can an oldster buy and eat?

That's why "weighted average" is meaningless and prone to fraud when weighted by a bunch of bureaucrats.

No, that's why a computer is weighted much, much less than food.

The ratio is very different for different people. The expense on medicine as percentage of income is much much higher for certain demographics than for others.

bob2356 says

Also not true. The windsor engines were 221 to 351 v8's. There was never a v6 windsor. They weren't at all modular. It was just the same block with bigger bores and longer strokes with a higher deck for the 351.

You are correct and that was my mistake in that there was no V6 windsor. But nevertheless, the Windsor engines covered the 221, 260, 289, 302, 255, and 351. Many parts are indeed totally interchangeable with several of these. For example the engine in my car is a 302 and MANY parts on it that I have replaced were also the same specs as those used for the 289, and even further, some parts from these two engines will also 221 and 260 engines.Reality says

1. LH platform Gen1 was used from 1993-1997, Gen2 from 1998-2004, so barely 1 decade. or

Earlier you were claiming that these platforms were gone in the mid 90's. So now you are more or less changing your story. Reality says

2. Change of corporate ownership did not put an end to LH platform development.

Either way, your fear of end of the world if GM went bankrupt was quite unfounded.

As I said before, change of corporate ownership was not on the table at the point of GM's bailout. Its also over simplistic to paint business transactions the same way because the situation with AMC was TOTALLY different than that of GM. Reality says

I did not try to back out of anything. It's absurd to think just because electric cars were made in 1899, somehow a carmaker today switching from gasoline to electric would not involve tools and engineering approach that are entirely different from what they were doing a few years before the switch.

I didn't say you backed out of anything. All you did was simply make some sort of claim that somehow long-established general manufacturing design was this totally new thing and at the same time claiming that something as basic and technically generic like a platform was obsolete. That makes zero sense.

edvard2 says

You were previously trying to suggest that "Modular engineering" is something totally new and different from platform design.

It is. Read up on it. Comparing modular engineering to common platforms is absurd. It's totally different. Here's an article from motor trend about vw. http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2012/1202_explaining_volkswagen_mqb_architecture/

bob2356 says

It is. Read up on it. Comparing modular engineering to common platforms is absurd. It's totally different. Here's an article from motor trend about vw.

I think you might want to actually read what modular engineering is about. In general, its about the engineering and design of components, parts, or whatnot on an independent scale in a way so that these components and parts can be used together to make a whole.

So for example, if company "X" makes a certain part in their factory to serve as a component later to be married to say- an air conditioner- which is itself made of 100's of such parts from other suppliers then that is basically an example of " Modular" engineering- aka- parts that are designed independently to work with others to form a design, system, or device.

A classic example is something like a pipe organ. Say that you have a large pipe organ that's made in some shop. Each and every pipe is made separately and if one were to blow air into each one, they each make a tone. But put together in an organ they also work together. These pipes could be used in other organs too ( assuming each manufacture of said pipe were to have them perfectly tuned in advance)

So no- "Modular" engineering is not new, and in the case of auto manufacturing is a well-established practice.

Strategist says

That perma bear theory is crap. Rents are determined by demand and supply, and nothing else. No landlord in San Francisco cares if the McDonald burger flippers can afford rent or not.

Your example does not violate the "perma-bear" model. SF has one of the highest rental demand markets in the country and plenty of high wage earners in that rental demand pool. Rents go up with ALL incomes in that pool.

If the pooled finances of five burger flippers can't match the pocket change of a mid level banker who just needs a crash pad, the banker gets the apartment. Now take that same pad and put it in say Podunk, Mississippi. There may not be many highly compensated bankers around but there are plenty of burger flippers. Perhaps a single burger flipper can afford three such apartments in Podunk.

The real question is why do burger flippers bother to stay in SF.

Strategist says

So what's the solution?

More section 8 probably.

tatupu70 says

Good luck with that. All your neighbors are in the unemployement line that you are unfamilar with. None of them have any money to pay you, despite your admirable attitude.

Let me give an example if you can understand. Imagine a few people stranded in an island. There is no government, there is no corporation. But there is a plenty of land, great weather, and a reasonable supply of trees with fruits. Perhaps there are some wild goats and buffaloes around as well.

According to you, those people will starve to death since they are not getting their paychecks or unemployment benefits. They won't be able to figure out how to survive with available resources

gsr says

Let me give an example if you can understand. Imagine a few people stranded in an island. There is no government, there is no corporation. But there is a plenty of land, great weather, and a reasonable supply of trees with fruits. Perhaps there are some wild goats and buffaloes around as well.

According to you, those people will starve to death since they are not getting their paychecks or unemployment benefits. They won't be able to figure out how to survive with available resources

Actually, that is not at all what I'm saying. How in the world did you interpret my posts as what you wrote above?

If you can find an island with great weather and enough available (free) land, (free) fruits and wild game, to support the current number of unemployed people, please point me in the right direction. I'd like to head there myself.

Reality says

The ratio is very different for different people. The expense on medicine as percentage of income is much much higher for certain demographics than for others.

Of course. Again, that's why they use an AVERAGE.

gsr says

tatupu70 says

Good luck with that. All your neighbors are in the unemployement line that you are unfamilar with. None of them have any money to pay you, despite your admirable attitude.

Let me give an example if you can understand. Imagine a few people stranded in an island. There is no government, there is no corporation. But there is a plenty of land, great weather, and a reasonable supply of trees with fruits. Perhaps there are some wild goats and buffaloes around as well.

According to you, those people will starve to death since they are not getting their paychecks or unemployment benefits. They won't be able to figure out how to survive with available resources

Oh that's rich. I guess next you'll suggest that people could figure out how to live on their own, without constant government direction. Hahaha, like as if people lived before The State was there to micromanage them

errc says

Oh that's rich. I guess next you'll suggest that people could figure out how to live on their own, without constant government direction. Hahaha, like as if people lived before The State was there to micromanage them

What's rich is that people believe the above narrative supplied to them... As if the majority of unemployed people don't actually want to earn a good living. I'm sure it makes it easier to think of them as all lazy, no good, freeloaders, doesn't it?

What's keeping unemployed people that want to earn a good living, from doing so?

errc says

What's keeping unemployed people that want to earn a good living, from doing so?

They aren't able to find a new job? What's your point?

tatupu70 says

Reality says

The ratio is very different for different people. The expense on medicine as percentage of income is much much higher for certain demographics than for others.

Of course. Again, that's why they use an AVERAGE.

The term is called "Average" but has little bearing on the spending pattern of any specific demographic group, and certainly not weighted according to spending patterns of those with substantial savings. . . hence the lowering of interest rate to match inflation rate is little more than a lie, and it's actually an action to enrich the leveraged wealthy at the expense of the middle class. The result is:

1. The would be net-consumer demographic (oldster savers) have little money to do discretionary spending; hence less jobs for the youngsters who would be working for those jobs on the margins.

2. Financial leverage is further encouraged, in fact the financial gambling being goaded on by the FED.

tatupu70 says

errc says

Oh that's rich. I guess next you'll suggest that people could figure out how to live on their own, without constant government direction. Hahaha, like as if people lived before The State was there to micromanage them

What's rich is that people believe the above narrative supplied to them... As if the majority of unemployed people don't actually want to earn a good living. I'm sure it makes it easier to think of them as all lazy, no good, freeloaders, doesn't it?

Earning a good living by filing government papers is just a lot easier for many people than earning a good living by being a productive worker getting the nod from fellow individual consumers. You can't be honestly telling me disability is correlated with economic conditions of the society.

edvard2 says

errc says

What's keeping unemployed people that want to earn a good living, from doing so?

They aren't able to find a new job? What's your point?

Or prefer not to take one. There are plenty jobs out there. Baby sitting and other independent contractor jobs are not even subject to minimum wage laws. What's preventing someone from taking a $6/hr baby sitting job? or a lawn mowing job or a snow removal job? He/she doesn't want to.

Reality says

Earning a good living by filing government papers is just a lot easier for many people than earning a good living by being a productive worker getting the nod from fellow individual consumers. You can't be honestly telling me disability is correlated with economic conditions.

So what happens when an employee who works for a company for 30 years, is highly regarded and good at their job is laid off for reasons beyond their control or influence? Do you think people such as these "want" to be laid off? As someone who grew up with a Father who got laid off twice and as myself having been laid off twice, its odd to me to hint that somehow people who utilize unemployment " Didn't try hard enough" or something vague of that nature.

Reality says

The term is called "Average" but has little bearing on the spending pattern of any specific demographic group,

Are we discussing spending or costs? Those are two very different concepts.

Reality says

hence the lowering of interest rate to match inflation rate is little more than a lie

Interest/savings rates aren't set by the Federal Reserve. They are determined by the market, and as such, aren't "set".

Reality says

1. The would be net-consumer demographic (oldster savers) have little money to do discretionary spending; hence less jobs for the youngsters who would be working for those jobs on the margins.

I'm not sure what your point is here? Old people didn't save?

Reality says

Financial leverage is further encouraged, in fact the financial gambling being goaded on by the FED.

Investment is encouraged.

Call it Crazy says

BULLSHIT!!! Totally!!.... If someone truly wanted to work, they'll find a job or create one for themselves....

I tell you what then: For the rest of us who live in reality , we'll happily utilize the insurance and services the government provides us when needed as they were designed to use, which includes unemployment insurance if we ever need it, social security when we retire, the freeways we drive on, and so on. Those who think they're enlightened and need none of these can deal with it themselves. Get laid off? Too bad, so sad. If you can't find a job then that's your fault.

Either way, I'd be genuinely curious how many right-wingers would do a 360 ( I can guarantee ALL of them would) if they found themselves in a predicament where they actually needed assistance. Sure- talk is cheap and idealogical fantasy sounds good until those who believe in it find themselves in the very situation they once derided.

Reality says

Earning a good living by filing government papers is just a lot easier for many people than earning a good living by being a productive worker getting the nod from fellow individual consumers. You can't be honestly telling me disability is correlated with economic conditions of the society.

What I'm telling you is that people would prefer to work for a living rather than collect disability or unemployment. As is obvious because when there are jobs available, both the UE and disability rates go down.

Call it Crazy says

If someone truly wanted to work, they'll find a job or create one for themselves....

You live in a different world than I, my friend.

Call it Crazy says

Spoken like the true liberal you are.... If it's FREE, it's for ME!!!

That's funny. I'm very middle of the road politically. Or at least what middle of the road was 20 years ago.

It's funny that I'm now considered a liberal....

edvard2 says

The problem with your assertion is that your "solution" is tied to gross assumptions and guesses. When it comes down to investments, risk, and financial planning, basing said investment on assumption is an almost assured means to LOSE a lot of money. Investments are made on the basis of more predictable outcomes. Simply put, saving two companies with large intact chains of suppliers, trained workers, and the entire network of inter-related enterprises tied to them and leaving this system intact has way LESS risk then doing what you were suggesting, which was to let em' fail and "Assume" that somehow other auto manufactures would have picked up the slack. Had something like what were suggesting been done the net loss would have almost assuredly been many, many times greater in overall cost then what it wound up being.

I can't say I agree at all with this reasoning. Giving handouts to GM does nothing to change the overall demand for cars. Therefore, if GM sells fewer cars, the other companies will sell MORE cars. And they will be better quality cars, because the other companies do not have failed business models. The "saving jobs" argument comes up constantly, and I think it's just a lame excuse for systemic transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. 10 billion dollars would make 10,000 people instant millionaires. That's a VERY high price to pay. NO executive or shareholder at GM should have made one red cent from that 10 billion dollars. All this did was allow GM to claw market share, that it doesn't deserve, away from the other manufacturers, and allow undeserving execs to pocket a bunch of money.

edvard2 says

So no- "Modular" engineering is not new, and in the case of auto manufacturing is a well-established practice.

Yes and writing programs was a well established practice when object orientated came along. Yet oo created a paradigm shift that completely changed programming.

Modular engineering in the current usage is about providing an interface for components across the entire car line, not making parts interchange. This allows subcontractors to produce modules that will work in any platform in a carmakers line. As a company wide, product wide practice this is new. Vw is the closest to really being there. Interchanging some parts is not an entire beginning to end top to bottom system any more than cobal is java. The first true modular platforms were 2011, so I would call that new.

Your analogy is incorrect. It's not about plugging pipes in. That's a part interchange. No matter what pipe you plug in it's exactly the same thing. It's not about parts fitting together to make a "device".

It's more like a bus on a computer where any component card can plug in. You could put in a video card, memory, whatever into any computer. Same with modular platforms, except it's just one manufactorer. You could plug in your choice of gas engine, diesel, hybrid module into any car in the line. Anything from low tech basic to high performance suspensions module into any car. whatever. Sorry, but this really is new stuff. It's a paradigm shift just like oo.

Reality says

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Not the consumer staples, and most certainly not medical expense.

Overall inflation rate is low. Some things are higher than the rate, some are lower. That's why it's called an weighted average.

How many new computers can an oldster buy and eat?

That's why "weighted average" is meaningless and prone to fraud when weighted by a bunch of bureaucrats.

Absolutely. But even if you take the CPI you would have to have a 7% raise to keep up between 2010 and 2012. Stagflation is brutal.

tatupu70 says

mell says

tatupu70 says

bob2356 says

Companies that make bad business decisions should be in bankruptcy.

No kidding. Why do people keep arguing this as if anyone disagreed???

Because they aren't, and a whole bunch of them.

Not sure what you are trying to say there...

Very easy, if you agree on this premise then you cannot bail out companies left and right. You guys already adopted the Obama strategy of talking one thing but doing the opposite. If you like your company you can keep it! That is as long as you're part of the TBTFs or if I want to set an example and balatantly disregard the rule of law and fuck over the bondholders to get some good PR out of it!

mell says

Very easy, if you agree on this premise then you cannot bail out companies left and right. You guys already adopted the Obama strategy of talking one thing but doing the opposite. If you like your company you can keep it! That is as long as you're part of the TBTFs or if I want to set an example and balatantly disregard the rule of law and fuck over the bondholders to get some good PR out of it!

Left and right? What other companies have been bailed out since the financial crisis?

mell says

Absolutely. But even if you take the CPI you would have to have a 7% raise to keep up between 2010 and 2012. Stagflation is brutal.

Brutal? You'd have to get raises of ~2.3%/year to keep up.

Quick tip--2.3%/year is not stagflation.

tatupu70 says

mell says

Absolutely. But even if you take the CPI you would have to have a 7% raise to keep up between 2010 and 2012. Stagflation is brutal.

Brutal? You'd have to get raises of ~2.3%/year to keep up.

Quick tip--2.3%/year is not stagflation.

Being in tech and business I am fortunate to actually get promotions or start my own ventures. Most people working less desirable or overcrowded sectors/areas never get anywhere close to keeping up with inflation, often they take pay-cuts over the years. Until they fall into government assistance, further thinning out the middle-class. Manufactured inflation is theft, it's that simple. "inflation target", yeah right... ;)

bob2356 says

Yes and writing programs was a well established practice when object orientated came along. Yet oo created a paradigm shift that completely changed programming.

At the end of the day the backbone of all programming still comes down to the base foundation, which is to say 1's and 0's. Likewise regardless of the system used to create them all cars will still require a platform in which to use for the car's systems.

bob2356 says

It's more like a bus on a computer where any component card can plug in. You could put in a video card, memory, whatever into any computer. Same with modular platforms, except it's just one manufactorer. You could plug in your choice of gas engine, diesel, hybrid module into any car in the line. Anything from low tech basic to high performance suspensions module into any car. whatever. Sorry, but this really is new stuff. It's a paradigm shift just like oo.

Everything you just described is basically the system that has been in place of auto manufacturing since its inception. Its been long-established that auto manufactures will often use components that in many cases are used across their entire lineup of vehicles. We can dilly-dally about this all day long, but "modular engineering" in auto manufacturing is nothing that suddenly came about. As I mentioned before, the textbook definition of modular engineering is simply about the production of different components by separate entities to be used in a finished product. That's it!

Besides- in the gist of this debate where reality was suggesting platform design is obsolete is not valid seeing as how all cars today use a platform.
Bush was first to initiate the bailout. bob2356 says

Your analogy is incorrect. It's not about plugging pipes in. That's a part interchange. No matter what pipe you plug in it's exactly the same thing. It's not about parts fitting together to make a "device".

You misunderstood my example. In the classic example of the pipe organ, well all organs use the same scale... right? So its safe to say that each pipe, though made at different times and of a different note will ultimately in combination yield the full musical scale of that final organ. Again- individual pieces made for the final reslt of an end-product, having been engineered to work with other pipes to perform slightly different "tasks" but working together result in a finalized, completed product with all pipes being necessary for that operation.

Call it Crazy says

tatupu70 says

Call it Crazy says

If someone truly wanted to work, they'll find a job or create one for themselves....

You live in a different world than I, my friend.

Yeah, and here is the perfect example of "your" world...

tatupu70 says

If you can find an island with great weather and enough available (free) land, (free) fruits and wild game, to support the current number of unemployed people, please point me in the right direction. I'd like to head there myself.

lol--nice job taking that out of context. It was a reply to gsr.

Call it Crazy says

None should be bailed out (or received a "hand out").... If you have shitty management, poor business practices, have gotten to bloated or have financial mismanagement, the company should stand on it's own ability or be gone...

Why is that so hard for you to understand???

And I agree. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

mell says

Being in tech and business I am fortunate to actually get promotions or start my own ventures. Most people working less desirable or overcrowded sectors/areas never get anywhere close to keeping up with inflation, often they take pay-cuts over the years.

#1--that's not the case.
#2--Total earnings/wages beat inflation comfortably so the only reason peoples' wages aren't keeping up is that too much of it is ending up in the hands of the onwers.

Call it Crazy says

Ha Ha... Except your posting history here tells a different story...

Nope--your definition of liberal is much different than 20 years ago. I'm middle of the road--you are far right.

Finally, this problem is not going to get any better on its own. Millions of seniors are expected to need rental housing in the coming decade.

I.e., millions of seniors downsizing in the next decade, driving house prices down where they will continue to spiral until the last boomer dies.

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Tuesday, December 10, 2013 __ Level is 102.2

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes! This was in the New York Times on August 27, 2006:

And up to date (by me) is here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

And http://patrick.net/?p=1230886

Homeboy says

That's a VERY high price to pay. NO executive or shareholder at GM should have made one red cent from that 10 billion dollars.

when the USG "invested" into GM they also become responsible for the employee contracts and vendor obligations. So if an executive gets $$$, so be it even if its from USG 'invested' money. Its called contract laws! If GM can just change its contracted obligations based on political pressure, who is to say they would back slide on their vendor and union contracts.

Call it Crazy says

Let's see.... First you're against bankruptcy because it causes unemployment....

Nope--I'm not. I'm just not naïve enough to think bankruptcy doesn't cause unemployment.

Call it Crazy says

You agree with this... but when businesses close, people lose jobs...

So, which is it... You can't have it both ways????

It's pretty simple. As a rule, businesses should go bankrupt when they are mismanaged. It will cause unemployment. Under unique circumstances, extenuating circumstances may dictate that it's better if a company is bailed out and allowed to stay in business. The world isn't black and white...