Opinions and/or experience with Autozone Airtex fuel pump for '89 Toyota?
muzician21
fuel pump. No issues currently but looking to take a long road trip
and seems like a good idea to do some pre-emptive wrench turning.
Autozone had two, an "Asian Manf'd" for like $160 something, and an
Airtex for $130 something, Also getting the tank gasket and the pickup
filter.
My brother who does car stuff adamantly insists that anything from
Autozone is garbage - period, that I need to go with either Toyota
parts or what he called "A line" parts from someone *other* than the
well known places like Autozone, Advance/Discount auto parts, Bumper
To Bumper. The problem with anything from Toyota obviously is the
cost. I've never priced a valve stem cap there but I feel reasonably
certain it wouldn't be under $20. Okay, maybe a slight exaggeration.
What say you? You think I'd be asking for trouble installing the
Airtex unit? Any other brands you recommend?
Does the term A-line mean anything to you?
Thanks
dsi1
You should just get a generic electric fuel pump - they're a lot cheaper.
"A-line" is a term for a style of a cut of a woman's skirt. How I can
know this and still be a heterosexual is beyond me. :-)
Scott Dorsey
>My brother who does car stuff adamantly insists that anything from
>Autozone is garbage - period, that I need to go with either Toyota
>parts or what he called "A line" parts from someone *other* than the
>well known places like Autozone, Advance/Discount auto parts, Bumper
>To Bumper. The problem with anything from Toyota obviously is the
>cost. I've never priced a valve stem cap there but I feel reasonably
>certain it wouldn't be under $20. Okay, maybe a slight exaggeration.
There is a possibility that you may encounter something from Autozone
that is not garbage, but the chances are not good. So the question
becomes, how much of a gamble are you willing to take?
If changing out the fuel pump is a half-hour job under the hood, I would
be willing to take more of a chance on a cheap part than I would if
it was a matter of dropping the tank.
>What say you? You think I'd be asking for trouble installing the
>Airtex unit? Any other brands you recommend?
>
>Does the term A-line mean anything to you?
Yes, go to whatever jobber your brother is using. Get something decent.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Tegger
d9dc37...@35g2000prt.googlegroups.com:
> Have an '89 Cressida with 160K plus miles on it, running the factory
> fuel pump. No issues currently but looking to take a long road trip
> and seems like a good idea to do some pre-emptive wrench turning.
WHY? Why on earth would you mess with something that's working perfectly-
well on the daffy hypothesis that on THIS particular trip (and not on all
the other trips the car's been on in 21-years) the fuel pump will conk out?
LEAVE THE OEM PUMP ALONE. By your own admission, it's working fine.
That pump cost $300 when new, and there's a reason why.
>
> Autozone had two, an "Asian Manf'd"
Ah, yes. "Asian Manf'd". ChiCom junk, you mean. The very thing to inspire
confidence while in the middle of Death Valley with buzzards overhead.
Well,you go right ahead and replace your top-quality OEM Toyota pump
(that's working perfectly) with some unknown-quality Chinese knockoff. I'll
send flowers when the buzzards eat your striated musculature.
In this case, the old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," definitely
applies. There are other things you can do to make sure your ride keeps you
away from the buzzards, but replacing the fuel pump isn't one of them.
--
Tegger
Jeff Strickland
"muzician21" <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:403baeb4-1f86-4804...@35g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
Here's a link to RockAuto. They have a Nippon-Denso fuel pump for 90-ish
dollars.
http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/x,carcode,1431712,parttype,6256
Tegger
@panix2.panix.com:
>
> If changing out the fuel pump is a half-hour job under the hood, I would
> be willing to take more of a chance on a cheap part than I would if
> it was a matter of dropping the tank.
If this fellow wants to perform the utterly useless task of replacing a
perfectly-good OEM Toyota fuel pump with unknown Chinese junk, he would be
best advised to take the old pump with him, plus appropriate tools, so that
he may put the old pump back when the cheapo replacement fails on him
during his "long road trip".
--
Tegger
m6onz5a
If it's not broken don't fix it.
No issues with your motor either but I don't see you putting a new one
of those in either. :)
Just do your basic tuneup & filter change, brake check etc and I'm
sure you'll be fine.
Btw, Airtex is a good aftermarket brand.
I too won't purchase parts from Advance or Autozone unless I'm broken
down and they are the only thing open.
I'm also leery of brand name products from these places too.. They
should be the same parts as real auto parts stores, but I still don't
trust them for some reason.. I'd rather buy the same product from
Fisher, NAPA, or a mom & pop store.
Hachiroku ハチロク
> On Dec 13, 6:54 pm, muzician21 <muzicia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Have an '89 Cressida with 160K plus miles on it, running the factory
>> fuel pump. No issues currently but looking to take a long road trip and
>> seems like a good idea to do some pre-emptive wrench turning.
>>
>> Autozone had two, an "Asian Manf'd" for like $160 something, and an
>> Airtex for $130 something, Also getting the tank gasket and the pickup
>> filter.
>>
>> My brother who does car stuff adamantly insists that anything from
>> Autozone is garbage - period, that I need to go with either Toyota parts
>> or what he called "A line" parts from someone *other* than the well
>> known places like Autozone, Advance/Discount auto parts, Bumper To
>> Bumper. The problem with anything from Toyota obviously is the cost.
>> I've never priced a valve stem cap there but I feel reasonably certain
>> it wouldn't be under $20. Okay, maybe a slight exaggeration.
>>
>> What say you? You think I'd be asking for trouble installing the Airtex
>> unit? Any other brands you recommend?
>>
>> Does the term A-line mean anything to you?
>>
>> Thanks
>
> If it's not broken don't fix it.
>
> No issues with your motor either but I don't see you putting a new one of
> those in either. :)
No issues with the motor? An '89 Cressida with a 3.0?
ROFLMAO!!!!
Had any head gasket issues yet? If you're going on a long road trip, I'd
make sure the HG is up to snuff! 160K is juat about the time 'issues'
start showing up. On this car, THAT would be my #1 concern before driving
over 250 miles...
Steve W.
> Have an '89 Cressida with 160K plus miles on it, running the factory
> fuel pump. No issues currently but looking to take a long road trip
> and seems like a good idea to do some pre-emptive wrench turning.
WHY? If the pump tests OK, then leave it alone. Easy enough to test it
using an amp meter and a flow meter. If it is putting out the proper
flow at the proper pressure and drawing withing the proper range then
it's fine.
>
> Autozone had two, an "Asian Manf'd" for like $160 something, and an
> Airtex for $130 something, Also getting the tank gasket and the pickup
> filter.
Both made in China. Both JUNK.
>
> My brother who does car stuff adamantly insists that anything from
> Autozone is garbage - period, that I need to go with either Toyota
> parts or what he called "A line" parts from someone *other* than the
> well known places like Autozone, Advance/Discount auto parts, Bumper
> To Bumper. The problem with anything from Toyota obviously is the
> cost. I've never priced a valve stem cap there but I feel reasonably
> certain it wouldn't be under $20. Okay, maybe a slight exaggeration.
>
> What say you? You think I'd be asking for trouble installing the
> Airtex unit? Any other brands you recommend?
>
> Does the term A-line mean anything to you?
Yep. Most parts places carry different levels of parts. From cheap junk
up through high quality parts.
The A- Line are the ones that are factory or OEM manufacturers parts.
Yes they will cost more. That is because they are made to a better
level, tested and actually LAST.
>
> Thanks
--
Steve W.
(\___/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
dsi1
>
> WHY? Why on earth would you mess with something that's working perfectly-
> well on the daffy hypothesis that on THIS particular trip (and not on all
> the other trips the car's been on in 21-years) the fuel pump will conk out?
>
> LEAVE THE OEM PUMP ALONE. By your own admission, it's working fine.
>
> That pump cost $300 when new, and there's a reason why.
This is a good point. My suggestion is that he buy a cheap pump and
stashes it under his seat because it will probably make him feel better.
My guess is that the pump is like most other pumps except a little more
heavy-duty. OTOH, I haven't checked one out.
dr_jeff
Why shouldn't he also staff spark plugs, wires, brakes, distributor,
alternator, belts and hoses, and a water pump, just in case? A better
idea is to realize that there are neat places where you can buy parts in
a pinch, called parts stores and dealers.
Jeff
Tegger
news:4d06d715$0$16672$882e...@usenet-news.net:
> On 12/13/2010 3:01 PM, Tegger wrote:
>>
>> WHY? Why on earth would you mess with something that's working
>> perfectly- well on the daffy hypothesis that on THIS particular trip
>> (and not on all the other trips the car's been on in 21-years) the
>> fuel pump will conk out?
>>
>> LEAVE THE OEM PUMP ALONE. By your own admission, it's working fine.
>>
>> That pump cost $300 when new, and there's a reason why.
>
> This is a good point. My suggestion is that he buy a cheap pump and
> stashes it under his seat because it will probably make him feel
> better.
Great idea! That way he'd be able to return it when he gets back, minus the
restocking fee, of course.
--
Tegger
dsi1
Since you are a doctor, I am a little surprised that you believe that
people act in a rational, logical, practical way. You've got a lot to
learn about peoples doc. :-)
>
> Jeff
>
>
Hachiroku ハチロク
Nah. It's an '89 Cressida. All he needs for a road trip is a fan clutch
and a head gasket...
dsi1
Forget about the restocking fees and instead just use them as stocking
stuffers. I don't know any kid that wouldn't want a fuel pump this
holiday season - even if it ain't OEM. :-)
Scott Dorsey
Trust me, when you drive a 2002, you keep all those things in the trunk.
I keep a spare alternator too and plenty of hose clamps. Also a gently
used cap and rotor.... because parts stores just laugh at you...
dr_jeff
I know that people don't act in a rational way. Too bad you missed the
sarcasm.
jeff
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>
Tegger
news:4d06dcee$0$9830$882e...@usenet-news.net:
But what if he licks it and gets poisoned? The ChiComs aren't noted for
caring much about materials and their compatibility with the human body.
--
Tegger
cuh...@webtv.net
the old working pump that is already on there?
I would leave the old pump alone untill it starts to have a problem.
I have bought parts at Autozone before, I never had a problem with them
yet.A few weeks ago I replaced the fuel pump on my 1983 Dodge van with
one I bought at Autozone.
By the way, last January the NAPA store wouldn't let me use their
restroom.Needless to say, I will never go to any NAPA store ever again.
cuhulin
dsi1
I didn't miss the sarcasm - but you sure did. That is, unless you're
being sarcastic now in which case, that would be just plain ironic! :-)
>
> jeff
>
>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>
>
dsi1
I like the word "ChiComs." You're probably right about this. I just
bought some kitchen cabinets that while beautiful and well made, were
made by some commies in China. Probably commie prisoners charged with
the most heinous of crimes. When the gal at Home Depot found out about
this she said that those cabinets emitted poisonous gasses. I installed
them anyway. Good thing I don't live there. Currently it's just my kids.
I figure that if I wait a few years before moving back in, all the bad
stuff will have outgassed. Wheew... that was a close call!
Hachiroku ハチロク
Brent
> Have an '89 Cressida with 160K plus miles on it, running the factory
> fuel pump. No issues currently but looking to take a long road trip
> and seems like a good idea to do some pre-emptive wrench turning.
>
> Autozone had two, an "Asian Manf'd" for like $160 something, and an
> Airtex for $130 something, Also getting the tank gasket and the pickup
> filter.
> My brother who does car stuff adamantly insists that anything from
> Autozone is garbage -
Not everything is. They have a few decent parts here and there. But it's
usually things like name brand bearings, filters, etc. But in general,
yes, junk.
> period, that I need to go with either Toyota
> parts or what he called "A line" parts from someone *other* than the
> well known places like Autozone, Advance/Discount auto parts, Bumper
> To Bumper. The problem with anything from Toyota obviously is the
> cost. I've never priced a valve stem cap there but I feel reasonably
> certain it wouldn't be under $20. Okay, maybe a slight exaggeration.
Most autoparts store stuff these days is garabage and autozone is the
bottom of the barrel generally speaking. Even Napa isn't what it used to
be but better than autozone. Rockauto often has OEM parts or the higher
end name brand stuff available.
> What say you? You think I'd be asking for trouble installing the
> Airtex unit? Any other brands you recommend?
I recommend keeping your stock original fuel pump in place. Is it just
pull out the back seat, open the access port and remove the pump? If it
doesn't require dropping the tank and is an easy swap like that another
OEM pump from a junkyard kept in the trunk should provide all the
security you need. Test it first of course.
> Does the term A-line mean anything to you?
He's probably just refering to the higher end name brand parts.
dsi1
Sounds similar to those horror stories of factory workers in America at
the turn of the century. I suspect that the battle for worker's rights
will mirror ours - blood, sweat and tears included. OTOH, I'm not so
sure that JonT isn't getting some leg pulling here. Thanks for the link.
m6onz5a
They may have different lines of parts (ie silver, gold brands etc)
but they are most likely all made in China, or some other 3rd world
country.
It's hard to find American made parts anymore in the aftermarket.
muzician21
> > Have an '89 Cressida with 160K plus miles on it, running the factory
> > fuel pump. No issues currently but looking to take a long road trip
> > and seems like a good idea to do some pre-emptive wrench turning.
>
> WHY?
A major part of the "Why" is there's a difference between having a
breakdown in my local area within AAA towing distance to my own house
where I have access to my own tools and spare car as opposed to in the
middle of an unknown locale in the dead of Winter traveling on a
Christmas Eve/Day weekend.
muzician21
> No issues with the motor? An '89 Cressida with a 3.0?
> ROFLMAO!!!!
>
> Had any head gasket issues yet?
It went after an overheat. When I rebuilt it, had the block decked
since it had developed cross-cylinder burning, torqued the bolts to
170 lbs rather than the I think 158 lb factory specs as I was
consistently advised to do in more than one Toyota forum. Seems to be
doing okay.
dr_jeff
I drove a '97 Ford Contour for 11 years without needing to carry those
spare parts.
Jeff
Tegger
news:4d0708f5$0$16541$882e...@usenet-news.net:
> On 12/13/2010 7:41 PM, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:
>>
>> Not to worry...they're killing themselves...
>>
>> http://www.szcpost.com/2010/05/foxconn-suicides.html
>
> Sounds similar to those horror stories of factory workers in America
> at the turn of the century.
You are assuming the Chinese and American situations are/were the same;
they are assuredly not.
One of the biggest differences is that the Chinese government (still
Communist, remember) maintains tight control over most of the Chinese
economy. It controls most wages, and /deliberately/ keeps them very low to
ensure export competitiveness.
That deliberate meanness is the primary cause of those Foxconn suicides.
Luckily for Foxconn, they had somewhat more control over their own wages
since they are a foreign-owned company, so they were able to react sooner
than Chinese-owned comapnies.
When the American government did intervene in wages, those interventions
were intended to keep wages HIGH.
> I suspect that the battle for worker's
> rights will mirror ours - blood, sweat and tears included.
Remember Tienanmen Square? The same government is in power now, and the
same government still suppresses dissidents.
--
Tegger
Tegger
dec166...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
If you want ensure your car stays alive on a long drive, you need to keep
the car maintained properly to begin with.
Here are some things that are about 1,000,000% more likely to strand you
than an OEM Toyota fuel pump:
- Neglected cooling system, which includes old rad hoses
- Neglected ignition system
- Old/worn accessory-drive belts (water pump is driven off one!)
- Neglected spare-tire pressure
- No spare tire in vehicle
- No (or incomplete) emergency jack in vehicle
- Tire pressures too low
- Tires too worn.
The fuel pump is the /least/ of your worries.
--
Tegger
Scott Dorsey
Unfortunately replacing a known-good-but-old pump with a pump of unknown
quality is MORE apt to cause you to have a breakdown than not.
Remember also most of these things have a bathtub curve.... either it will
fail in the first thousand miles or it will last a long time. Changing
things out right before a long trip is a good way to experience the early
failures in a bad way.
Scott Dorsey
>On 12/13/10 10:02 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> Trust me, when you drive a 2002, you keep all those things in the trunk.
>> I keep a spare alternator too and plenty of hose clamps. Also a gently
>> used cap and rotor.... because parts stores just laugh at you...
>
>spare parts.
Sure, but you could just pull into a Ford dealer and get parts when it
broke down, rather than be told that it would be three weeks to get it
from Germany.... if they have it already made... if not the next fab run
will be in the fall some time...
hls
"muzician21" <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:403baeb4-1f86-4804...@35g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
> Have an '89 Cressida with 160K plus miles on it, running the factory
> fuel pump. No issues currently but looking to take a long road trip
> and seems like a good idea to do some pre-emptive wrench turning.
For a long road trip, check:
(1) When have you replaced your hoses...are they due? Long overdue?
(2) Belt or belts....?
(3) Battery cables ok and clean at the terminals?
(4) If you have an auto trans, has it ever been services?
(5) Tires???
Forget the fuel pump. If something unusual happens, stop, call AAA,
and get it fixed.
You cant anticipate everything.
jim beam
> dsi1<ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote in
> news:4d0708f5$0$16541$882e...@usenet-news.net:
>
>> On 12/13/2010 7:41 PM, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Not to worry...they're killing themselves...
>>>
>>> http://www.szcpost.com/2010/05/foxconn-suicides.html
>>
>> Sounds similar to those horror stories of factory workers in America
>> at the turn of the century.
>
>
>
>
> You are assuming the Chinese and American situations are/were the same;
> they are assuredly not.
>
> One of the biggest differences is that the Chinese government (still
> Communist, remember) maintains tight control over most of the Chinese
> economy. It controls most wages, and /deliberately/ keeps them very low to
> ensure export competitiveness.
that's true - most chinese corporate executives are ranking members of
the communist party - they don't get to enjoy bank loans and government
support unless they are.
but i think wanting "export competitiveness" is a serious
misunderstanding the west has of this situation. what we are doing is
assuming they're thinking like us, and we're interested in export
competitiveness. they are not. they have a deliberate and highly
aggressive long term policy of effectively "disarming" the united states
by slowly and carefully, industry by industry, removing our
manufacturing capacity. if we can't manufacture, we can't redeploy that
capacity to arm for war. and if we can't arm for war, we can't fight
one. and then we're not a superpower, we're an /ex/-superpower.
seriously, we're stretched in our current [small scale] operations - we
have no capacity for anything large unless we divert significant
manufacturing resources to materiel. and by "large", i mean a chinese
invasion of japan, or south korea [via their ally, north korea]. and
/definitely/ not if it's on more than one front. and if they went
really crazy and invaded australia for its mineral resources - they've
already been trying to buy australian mines - then what?
no, failing to understand china's real objective in this is a very
serious mistake. we're already in a situation where if the chinese
decided to stop shipping all our electrical and electronics, a lot of
chemicals, a lot of construction materials [particularly iron and
steel], car components and even toilet paper, we'd be on our knees in
two weeks. [we got a glimpse of that when there was the beginnings of a
dock dispute here a few years back.]
we need to re-industrialize - it's our only long term financial and
military security.
>
> That deliberate meanness is the primary cause of those Foxconn suicides.
> Luckily for Foxconn, they had somewhat more control over their own wages
> since they are a foreign-owned company, so they were able to react sooner
> than Chinese-owned comapnies.
>
> When the American government did intervene in wages, those interventions
> were intended to keep wages HIGH.
>
>
>
>> I suspect that the battle for worker's
>> rights will mirror ours - blood, sweat and tears included.
>
>
>
> Remember Tienanmen Square? The same government is in power now, and the
> same government still suppresses dissidents.
>
>
>
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Steve W.
True. The problem is that people lump ALL Chinese made stuff into a junk
pile. There is no reason why they cannot make high quality parts. It
just takes a LOT better quality control and using better materials.
There are some good parts made there.
The other thing is that the sources of many of the better parts are now
Mexico, Canada, Europe.
Fat Dumb & Happy
I agree, just take lots of money or a couple of high limit credit
cards and you will make it back home, eventually.
Brent
> One of the biggest differences is that the Chinese government (still
> Communist, remember) maintains tight control over most of the Chinese
> economy. It controls most wages, and /deliberately/ keeps them very low to
> ensure export competitiveness.
This differs from the US only in a matter of degree as far as I can
tell. China pegs their currency to the dollar and as the
federal reserve inflates the dollar (by creating more of them) for the
benefit of the federal government and toobigtofail banks China's
government responds by creating more of their currency. Since wages
remain essentially the same numerically in both nations, workers earn
less than before.
> When the American government did intervene in wages, those interventions
> were intended to keep wages HIGH.
It depends on the industry and the political powers/influence. I
would not be surprised if the government of China doesn't cause some
people's wages to rise as well. That's how political systems work,
winners and losers are not picked by who serves others best in the
market, they are picked by who best manipulates the political
system.
The US government uses immigration policy as one way of keeping wages
low domestically, and probably others as well. Wages drop in value as
more and more dollars are created. China's government does what it does
out in the open (as viewed from the US), the US federal government does
things to hide what it's doing so those who point it out can be called
kooks because it's a combination of things that render the same result.
It uses fancy terms, it cooks the calculations, etc and so forth. The
actions to benefit the few are effectively the same.
If it weren't for this dollar peg and more and more stuff being made in
china those of us in the USA would be facing the effects of the
inflation. Thanks to China's peg, the Chinese suffer much of it while
prices in the USA stay much the same. Just that the stuff is made in
china and is crappier than it was before. Which is great for CPI because
the calculation doesn't see the difference between that nice heavy, will
last decades piece made in the US in the 1950s and the lucky if it works
out of the box one made in 2010 in China. The CPI might even consider
the current one better because it has more features.
>> I suspect that the battle for worker's
>> rights will mirror ours - blood, sweat and tears included.
> Remember Tienanmen Square? The same government is in power now, and the
> same government still suppresses dissidents.
It's all in point of view. The US government, same one as in the 1960s,
suppresses dissidents as well, except we are supposed to believe the US
government tells the truth. That whatever non-political related charge
they go to prison on has nothing to do with their politics, the setup
from an FBI mole/informant is totally the fault of the targeted person.
The result is still the same. From China it probably looks like what it
is. While from China those dissidents sitting in prison there appear to
be there for crimes unrelated to their politics. Now china may have more
political prisoners per capita but the war on drugs puts the USA way
ahead on total prisoners.
Hachiroku ハチロク
Why would I put an American part in a Toyota, when the Japanese made part
is by far superior?
Hachiroku ハチロク
How long ago was that?
I have an '88 Supra that had the HG done once, and needs it again. But the
place that did it (before ) bought it) probably wasn't aware of the 'spec
change' for torque and went with the original factory spec.
BTW, I hope you mean *78* instead of 58! Otherwise, you'll NEVER get them
out! ;)
Good thing about the decking, too. You must have had the whole thing apart!
Hachiroku ハチロク
The only difference is, instead of amassing the Police, they'll just send
out the Army! :0
Tegger
news:ie8440$htb$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
> The problem is that people lump ALL Chinese made stuff into a
> junk pile. There is no reason why they cannot make high quality parts.
> It just takes a LOT better quality control and using better materials.
> There are some good parts made there.
There are EXCELLENT parts made there: They are sold under the
automaker's own brand, only at the automaker's franchised dealerships.
The Red Chinese are as capable as any other examples of the human
species of producing quality goods, but they need to be supervised and
managed by anybody other than Red Chinese nationals to be able to do it.
And even then there's no guarantee the parts will be of good quality: it
depends on the diligence of the non-Red-Chinese managers.
Red China is a horrible mess, and will continue to be so as long as the
Communists remain at the whip.
--
Tegger
dsi1
> True. The problem is that people lump ALL Chinese made stuff into a junk
> pile. There is no reason why they cannot make high quality parts. It
> just takes a LOT better quality control and using better materials.
> There are some good parts made there.
It's always bad to underestimate your adversary. My guess is that the
Chinese can manufacture a part of higher quality at a lower price than
could be made in the US. The problem is that the guys ordering the parts
are only interested in price, not quality. That's the breaks.
The alloy housing on my iPad in made in a most remarkable way. It's
machined out of a solid billet of material. It's an expensive way to
make a housing and there's not many manufacturers that would choose to
do it this way. My guess is that Apple is a manufacturer that's serious
about quality AND price. Choose to believe that the Chinese can only
make junk if you like but it simply ain't true.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Red China is a horrible mess, and will continue to be so as long as the
>Communists remain at the whip.
This may well be true. But, nevertheless, there is a huge demand in the
market for crap. Everybody wants everything to be as cheap as possible,
and when the Chinese are no longer able to make low quality junk at the
lowest possible price point, we will be buying it from Nigeria or Haiti.
The reason why Chinese factories make trash is because American importers
want to buy trash from them.
Brent
> The reason why Chinese factories make trash is because American importers
> want to buy trash from them.
IME, The default setting is crap and the knob is spring loaded to return
to the default the moment someone lets go of it. Will a name brand
company have better stuff come out of china on average than a no-name?
sure. They usually have someone holding the knob. Do some importers want
crap? sure. Are there companies that expect quality but don't hold
the knob? tons of them, but most have learned by now... I hope. Are some
things dirt simple enough that they really can't screw them up too
badly? yes.
Does made in China stuff have a place? yes. I've found myself getting
made in China things when A) it's on sale such that it's extremely
cheap. and B) It's something I won't use enough to justify the
cost of something better made. C) It's simple enough not to screw up too
badly.
Brent
> The alloy housing on my iPad in made in a most remarkable way. It's
> machined out of a solid billet of material. It's an expensive way to
> make a housing and there's not many manufacturers that would choose to
> do it this way. My guess is that Apple is a manufacturer that's serious
> about quality AND price. Choose to believe that the Chinese can only
> make junk if you like but it simply ain't true.
In china labor is cheap. Depending on your volumes machining from a
solid block can be cheaper than a casting or other tooled process to
achieve the desired result. I know because I've done this.
If true, I would imagine it is because apple wanted a metal housing but
die casting would be far too brittle and fragile. machining Al in china
is probably far cheaper than the alternatives.
jim
>
> IME, The default setting is crap and the knob is spring loaded to return
> to the default the moment someone lets go of it.
That is called capitalism. Nobobdy produces anything better than the
market demands. The same principal holds true in the US. If it weren't
for massive government regulation the average car sold in the US would
be different than it currently is. The most popular cars might cost
about $4000 and would start to fall apart as soon as you drove it from
the car dealership. If you wanted a reliable car you would need to pay
around $30,000 and very few people would do that voluntarily. For
$30000 you would get a car that is as reliable as what you currently
pay about $20K. It would cost more because fewer would be built.
-jim
Tegger
@panix2.panix.com:
> Tegger <inv...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>Red China is a horrible mess, and will continue to be so as long as the
>>Communists remain at the whip.
>
> This may well be true. But, nevertheless, there is a huge demand in the
> market for crap. Everybody wants everything to be as cheap as possible,
> and when the Chinese are no longer able to make low quality junk at the
> lowest possible price point, we will be buying it from Nigeria or Haiti.
The Chinese government works overtime to keep wages as low as possible by
suppressing dissent and communication wherever it can.
Some production has already moved from China to other, even lower-priced
locales, like Vietnam and Laos. The problem with places like Nigeria and
Haiti is that their governments are extremely unstable: few foreigners are
willing to do anything long-term there because the rules can change in
minutes.
>
> The reason why Chinese factories make trash is because American importers
> want to buy trash from them.
Either that, or they're clueless when it comes to dealing with the factory,
and allow crap to be shipped to them.
--
Tegger
Brent
> Brent wrote:
>
>>
>> IME, The default setting is crap and the knob is spring loaded to return
>> to the default the moment someone lets go of it.
>
> That is called capitalism. Nobobdy produces anything better than the
> market demands.
No that isn't anything close to capitalism and market demand. Various
companies have gone out of business and/or had their reputations
destroyed because they sent manufacturing to china and didn't keep after
their contract or even wholely owned factories. The market rejects that
crap time and time again.
> The same principal holds true in the US. If it weren't
> for massive government regulation the average car sold in the US would
> be different than it currently is. The most popular cars might cost
> about $4000 and would start to fall apart as soon as you drove it from
> the car dealership. If you wanted a reliable car you would need to pay
> around $30,000 and very few people would do that voluntarily. For
> $30000 you would get a car that is as reliable as what you currently
> pay about $20K. It would cost more because fewer would be built.
Wrong again. First, the regulation has nothing to do with how long a car
lasts. It's possible to make a cheap-ass crappy car that complies with
all the regulations that presently exist in the USA. Remember the
Yugo? It managed to comply with all government regs of the time. The
reason that cars last longer and are better is competition. Regulation
aims to limit competition. That's why in highly regulated markets where
government is basically choosing who gets to participate in a business
you get nothing but crap. Look at the fine automobiles turned out by
East Germany, the soviet union, and so on.
When a market has nothing but crap to choose from you'll find that in
most if not all cases it's a market where government and government
regulation and intervention has limited/eliminated competition in some
way. When people are free to start their own businesses, set their own
prices, etc and so forth someone will see that the market is dominated
by crap or overpriced crap and do it better.
Remember China is still communist, it's the model of the world, where
the political powers more or less get to decide who can have a business
and who can't.
dsi1
> On 2010-12-16, dsi1<ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>
>> The alloy housing on my iPad in made in a most remarkable way. It's
>> machined out of a solid billet of material. It's an expensive way to
>> make a housing and there's not many manufacturers that would choose to
>> do it this way. My guess is that Apple is a manufacturer that's serious
>> about quality AND price. Choose to believe that the Chinese can only
>> make junk if you like but it simply ain't true.
>
> In china labor is cheap. Depending on your volumes machining from a
> solid block can be cheaper than a casting or other tooled process to
> achieve the desired result. I know because I've done this.
If it was cheaper to machine a part it would be because you didn't make
very many pieces. My guess is that Apple has made several million iPads.
I received my iPad on the first day of it's release - on a Saturday as
did several hundred thousand people in the US. I'm assuming that they
all were shipped directly from China. A remarkable logistical feat.
>
> If true, I would imagine it is because apple wanted a metal housing but
> die casting would be far too brittle and fragile. machining Al in china
> is probably far cheaper than the alternatives.
The reason you'd mill a part like that is because you wanted a strong
part and price was a secondary consideration. Relatively speaking,
making a part in that way is expensive both in China and America. I
doubt that die casting was considered although hydroforming or forging
the pieces may have been.
Brent
> Either that, or they're clueless when it comes to dealing with the factory,
> and allow crap to be shipped to them.
It's not usually the engineering departments that make the decision to
move production to china. It's the people in the board rooms who think
engineering(design,manufacturing, and otherwise) is a fungible
commodity.
Brent
> On 12/15/2010 6:44 PM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2010-12-16, dsi1<ds...@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The alloy housing on my iPad in made in a most remarkable way. It's
>>> machined out of a solid billet of material. It's an expensive way to
>>> make a housing and there's not many manufacturers that would choose to
>>> do it this way. My guess is that Apple is a manufacturer that's serious
>>> about quality AND price. Choose to believe that the Chinese can only
>>> make junk if you like but it simply ain't true.
>>
>> In china labor is cheap. Depending on your volumes machining from a
>> solid block can be cheaper than a casting or other tooled process to
>> achieve the desired result. I know because I've done this.
> If it was cheaper to machine a part it would be because you didn't make
> very many pieces. My guess is that Apple has made several million iPads.
In some cases. However, for the Ipad housing I doubt there would be a
process where secondary machining wasn't required. I doubt it is fully
machined from standard stock in their volumes, but making a piece of
consumer electronics that size with a metal housing has requirements
that may force choosing from various expensive options.
> I received my iPad on the first day of it's release - on a Saturday as
> did several hundred thousand people in the US. I'm assuming that they
> all were shipped directly from China. A remarkable logistical feat.
Those likely were already in the US long before the release date or they
flew in the first ones to make the date. It depends on how many things
went wrong or how much sooner the date was pushed along the way. The
lead times to get product in, through to retail distribution outlets,
and finally to stores takes a rather long time in normal circumstances.
>> If true, I would imagine it is because apple wanted a metal housing but
>> die casting would be far too brittle and fragile. machining Al in china
>> is probably far cheaper than the alternatives.
> The reason you'd mill a part like that is because you wanted a strong
> part and price was a secondary consideration.
I believe that is what I wrote.
> Relatively speaking,
> making a part in that way is expensive both in China and America. I
> doubt that die casting was considered although hydroforming or forging
> the pieces may have been.
My recent machined part sourced from china is roughly 1/5 of what US
vendors quoted it at. It was supposed to have been a low volume runner,
but that's changed since the design phase.
Anyway, what I am seeing in photos doesn't have me convinced it's fully
machined. However people must be breaking/damaging them a lot given how
many places are selling replacements, both apple and knockoffs.
Scott Dorsey
>On 2010-12-16, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m> wrote:
>> Brent wrote:
>>> IME, The default setting is crap and the knob is spring loaded to return
>>> to the default the moment someone lets go of it.
>>
>> That is called capitalism. Nobobdy produces anything better than the
>> market demands.
>
>No that isn't anything close to capitalism and market demand. Various
>companies have gone out of business and/or had their reputations
>destroyed because they sent manufacturing to china and didn't keep after
>their contract or even wholely owned factories. The market rejects that
>crap time and time again.
If that is the fact, then why are so many people buying the cheapest possible
crap from China? Could it possibly be because those companies are blinded
by the cost savings and not thinking about their long-term reputation or
about the quality of their product?
People will go out of their way to save a penny even if it results in buying
poor quality junk that falls apart. And they do it over and over again, never
seeming to learn their lesson that buying junk costs more in the long run.
Unfortunately this is the case not only for the customer but for the people
importing and retailing too. And, as a consequence, it makes it more difficult
to find actual quality products because the market does not demand quality,
the market demands low prices.
jim
>
> On 2010-12-16, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m> wrote:
> > Brent wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> IME, The default setting is crap and the knob is spring loaded to return
> >> to the default the moment someone lets go of it.
> >
> > That is called capitalism. Nobobdy produces anything better than the
> > market demands.
>
> No that isn't anything close to capitalism and market demand. Various
> companies have gone out of business and/or had their reputations
> destroyed because they sent manufacturing to china and didn't keep after
> their contract or even wholely owned factories. The market rejects that
> crap time and time again.
That is your unsupported opinion. A lot more US companies that never
had anything built in China have gone out of business for that very
same reason. If you are claiming that some companies have trouble
communicating with their Chinese suppliers? Yes, no doubt that risk
exists.
>
> > The same principal holds true in the US. If it weren't
> > for massive government regulation the average car sold in the US would
> > be different than it currently is. The most popular cars might cost
> > about $4000 and would start to fall apart as soon as you drove it from
> > the car dealership. If you wanted a reliable car you would need to pay
> > around $30,000 and very few people would do that voluntarily. For
> > $30000 you would get a car that is as reliable as what you currently
> > pay about $20K. It would cost more because fewer would be built.
>
> Wrong again. First, the regulation has nothing to do with how long a car
> lasts. It's possible to make a cheap-ass crappy car that complies with
> all the regulations that presently exist in the USA. Remember the
> Yugo?
The Yugo cars were for a while imported to the US. The company that
made the car were in business prior to that and after that. They make
money selling cars. They just couldn't make money selling them in the
US.
Were it not for US regulations a car like that would probably sell for
half of what it did and would continue to sell in the US market. And
no, making the Yugo comply with US regulations certainly didn't make
the Yugo more dependable, last longer or a better deal for the
consumer. I didn't say anything like that. One could argue that the US
regulations did pretty much the opposite, but the Yugo is still
evidence there are plenty of people who would buy a cheap cars if they
were available.
The regulations are designed primarily to make it difficult for cars
like the Yugo in the US market. The Yugo is only evidence that the
system works as designed. The Yugo actually sold quite well, but if
you aren't making money on each car it doesn't matter how many sell
and it didn't help that the US bombed their factory during the Clinton
administration.
>It managed to comply with all government regs of the time. The
> reason that cars last longer and are better is competition. Regulation
> aims to limit competition. That's why in highly regulated markets where
> government is basically choosing who gets to participate in a business
> you get nothing but crap. Look at the fine automobiles turned out by
> East Germany, the soviet union, and so on.
You can look a lot closer and see what cars they are making in Brazil
or Mexico. Or you can go back a generation or two and see what the US
was making. The model T Ford was a lot better suited to the roads and
driving habits of the public back then.
One of the things you are overlooking is that government management
has shaped the market more than it has shaped the cars. The car market
would be much different without the massive infrastructure to support
the automobile, and the free market would have never built that
infrastructure. Without that infrastructure people would be satisfied
to purchase cars that go only 40 mph and drive like trucks.
>
> When a market has nothing but crap to choose from you'll find that in
> most if not all cases it's a market where government and government
> regulation and intervention has limited/eliminated competition in some
> way. When people are free to start their own businesses, set their own
> prices, etc and so forth someone will see that the market is dominated
> by crap or overpriced crap and do it better.
So is your thesis that the Chinese produce crap and the US government
is what forces business to get their goods made in China?
>
> Remember China is still communist, it's the model of the world, where
> the political powers more or less get to decide who can have a business
> and who can't.
That political power to decide also exists in the US. Case in point
would be the Yugo. Another example - the government put the old
Volkswagen bug out of business long before the Yugo.
Brent
>>On 2010-12-16, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m> wrote:
>>> Brent wrote:
>>>> IME, The default setting is crap and the knob is spring loaded to return
>>>> to the default the moment someone lets go of it.
>>>
>>> That is called capitalism. Nobobdy produces anything better than the
>>> market demands.
>>No that isn't anything close to capitalism and market demand. Various
>>companies have gone out of business and/or had their reputations
>>destroyed because they sent manufacturing to china and didn't keep after
>>their contract or even wholely owned factories. The market rejects that
>>crap time and time again.
> If that is the fact, then why are so many people buying the cheapest possible
> crap from China? Could it possibly be because those companies are blinded
> by the cost savings and not thinking about their long-term reputation or
> about the quality of their product?
The reason is because corporate suits think engineering and
manufacturing are fungible commodities. They don't
value it and they see a bigger bonus for themselves by moving
manufacturing to china. To them it's all the same but X costs less than
Y. Not to mention that the economic central planners have done
everything to favor that action from currencies to taxes as well. The
reason for has nothing to do with free market and everything to do with
unfree market, politics and other meddling combined with the
typical fundamental ignorance and personality traits of who rises to the
top in political systems such as governments and large corporations.
> People will go out of their way to save a penny even if it results in buying
> poor quality junk that falls apart. And they do it over and over again, never
> seeming to learn their lesson that buying junk costs more in the long run.
Are we talking corporate suits here or everyday people? Seems like
you've switched back to people who have to be more concerned with having
to pay the rent than buying the best made stuff. In that case, look
to the devaluation of the US dollar and other economic manipulations
from central planning. It's cheap crap that is currently holding
people's standard of living together. Sure they may end up spending more
in the long run, but they don't have the capital now to buy for the long
run. You're not going to find many people driving the lowest priced Kia model
because they are just buying on price but could afford to buy a new
Lincoln.
> Unfortunately this is the case not only for the customer but for the people
> importing and retailing too. And, as a consequence, it makes it more difficult
> to find actual quality products because the market does not demand quality,
> the market demands low prices.
The free market demands both, high quality at a low price. There are
people who accept more low price than high quality, there are some who
demand more high quality than low price. But those are individual
decisions made on a case by case basis. When a giant sucking sound in
one direction appears or some sort of bubble it means some great force
is distorting the market.
As to cheap crap and regulation, when government steps in with
regulation, then what is above and below the standard often becomes
forbidden. The FDA does that time and time again, and when it's not
forbidden to exceed the standards it's often forbidden to use that as a
selling point. It is a great way to protect politically favored
companies from new upstarts that want to make a better mouse
trap. Example? Want to make safe raw milk? It can be done, but it's
expensive. Some people will pay that premium. Guess what? It's illegal.
Want to test every cow for mad cow for premium beef? That's illegal too,
must follow the standard to the letter, no better, no worse.
jim beam
well, there's two reasons i think. first, people want stuff cheap, and
china understands that western psychology and exploits that by selling
below cost in many cases for their own military/strategic reasons, not
economic.
the other is our own fault - american manufacturers don't want to make a
mere profit, they want to make an absolute killing. example: 60-odd
years ago, the "bic" ballpoint pen hit the market - from argentina of
all places. unlike its american counterparts that were selling for $10+
dollars a piece, a LOT of money at that time, bic sold theirs for cents.
they controlled manufacture, they controlled costs, and they undercut
everybody else. by huge margins. and they never tried to make a
killing, just a good healthy profit. here we are all these decades
later, and bic is still just about the largest and most ubiquitous
global producer, and all gloss and marketing aside, still make the best.
and you've never even heard of those "get rich quick" domestics.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Brent
> Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 2010-12-16, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m> wrote:
>> > Brent wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> IME, The default setting is crap and the knob is spring loaded to return
>> >> to the default the moment someone lets go of it.
>> > That is called capitalism. Nobobdy produces anything better than the
>> > market demands.
>> No that isn't anything close to capitalism and market demand. Various
>> companies have gone out of business and/or had their reputations
>> destroyed because they sent manufacturing to china and didn't keep after
>> their contract or even wholely owned factories. The market rejects that
>> crap time and time again.
> That is your unsupported opinion.
Should I start listing examples?
> A lot more US companies that never
> had anything built in China have gone out of business for that very
> same reason.
Of course, bad quality equals going out of business, sky is blue. What
are you getting at?
> If you are claiming that some companies have trouble
> communicating with their Chinese suppliers? Yes, no doubt that risk
> exists.
And when a company does it poorly, what happens? That's my point. The
market punishes poor quality while you were arguing that it demands only
low prices and thus the lowest possible quality. That's the mantra of
central planners, control freaks, do-gooders, and other regulators who
think they know what people should buy.
People buy the quality/price ratio with regards to the specific item,
how they will use it, how often they will use it, its cosmetic
properties, and many other factors that vary from person to person and
over time. This is why free markets offer such wide selections. When the
selections narrow it's time to look for a reason, for some powerful
force that is distorting the market in some way. Why are we getting lots
of made in china crap? Could it be that people's real wages are
declining while tax, trade, and other policies, laws, and regulations
favor manufacturing in China and limit what quality people can afford?
>> > The same principal holds true in the US. If it weren't
>> > for massive government regulation the average car sold in the US would
>> > be different than it currently is. The most popular cars might cost
>> > about $4000 and would start to fall apart as soon as you drove it from
>> > the car dealership. If you wanted a reliable car you would need to pay
>> > around $30,000 and very few people would do that voluntarily. For
>> > $30000 you would get a car that is as reliable as what you currently
>> > pay about $20K. It would cost more because fewer would be built.
>> Wrong again. First, the regulation has nothing to do with how long a car
>> lasts. It's possible to make a cheap-ass crappy car that complies with
>> all the regulations that presently exist in the USA. Remember the
>> Yugo?
> The Yugo cars were for a while imported to the US. The company that
> made the car were in business prior to that and after that. They make
> money selling cars. They just couldn't make money selling them in the
> US.
Why would that be if everyone in the US buys on price like you wrpte
> Were it not for US regulations a car like that would probably sell for
> half of what it did and would continue to sell in the US market. And
> no, making the Yugo comply with US regulations certainly didn't make
> the Yugo more dependable, last longer or a better deal for the
> consumer. I didn't say anything like that. One could argue that the US
> regulations did pretty much the opposite, but the Yugo is still
> evidence there are plenty of people who would buy a cheap cars if they
> were available.
You are arguing the only reason that we don't have the choice between
crap and crap is because of our dear leaders in DC regulating and
controlling. That's false.
> The regulations are designed primarily to make it difficult for cars
> like the Yugo in the US market.
Now you're getting somewhere.
> The Yugo is only evidence that the
> system works as designed. The Yugo actually sold quite well, but if
> you aren't making money on each car it doesn't matter how many sell
> and it didn't help that the US bombed their factory during the Clinton
> administration.
They sold well until they got a reputation for being CRAP.
>>It managed to comply with all government regs of the time. The
>> reason that cars last longer and are better is competition. Regulation
>> aims to limit competition. That's why in highly regulated markets where
>> government is basically choosing who gets to participate in a business
>> you get nothing but crap. Look at the fine automobiles turned out by
>> East Germany, the soviet union, and so on.
> You can look a lot closer and see what cars they are making in Brazil
> or Mexico. Or you can go back a generation or two and see what the US
> was making. The model T Ford was a lot better suited to the roads and
> driving habits of the public back then.
>
> One of the things you are overlooking is that government management
> has shaped the market more than it has shaped the cars.
I'm not overlooking that at all, in fact it's the crux of my argument.
That the market has been shaped. You just think it's for the better, but
all the china made crap we see today is a direct result of their
shaping.
> The car market
> would be much different without the massive infrastructure to support
> the automobile, and the free market would have never built that
> infrastructure. Without that infrastructure people would be satisfied
> to purchase cars that go only 40 mph and drive like trucks.
That's your pro government central planning speculation. BTW, The
central planners never created any of the breakthroughs that occured.
Now were some implemented by government? Sure, that's how the systems
are set up, to use the force of the state, it doesn't have to be that
way, but that's how it's been and becoming increasingly more so that
way. Has that system made us richer than the alternative? It's
speculation one way or the other since we've never had the full
alternative, but we can see where increasing political power over daily
life is taking us. We can see what full out central planning has done
in other nations.
As to driving and road systems we can see what the political system does
by eliminating competition. Look at the US interstate system, compared
to the German system, it's cheap crap. Look at how much better German
cars are at high speed because of the lack of control freakish limits on
velocity. What would have road system competition given us or even them?
Imagine if the road system we got was because of what people decided to
pay for instead of what was best for politics? You might
think we would have dirt cart paths as they would be cheapest, but even
advances in bicycles got people clammering for better roads.
Ever notice how commerical capital equipment sold to private companies
is made better, holds up longer, and needs fewer repairs and can be
repaired when it does? How equipment that businesses buy is designed so
people can do more in less time? How might that apply to roads built and
owned by the private sector? Would they hold up longer or be designed to
create lots of jobs fixing and redoing roads? Would they be designed to
get the most customers through per minute or left for decades with
traffic jam causing design defects?
>> When a market has nothing but crap to choose from you'll find that in
>> most if not all cases it's a market where government and government
>> regulation and intervention has limited/eliminated competition in some
>> way. When people are free to start their own businesses, set their own
>> prices, etc and so forth someone will see that the market is dominated
>> by crap or overpriced crap and do it better.
> So is your thesis that the Chinese produce crap and the US government
> is what forces business to get their goods made in China?
Nice strawmen. 1) The word I used was encouraged, not forced. I've
already been over it in this thread. 2) I clearly stated not everything
from china is crap, there is just a high likelyhood of crap.
>> Remember China is still communist, it's the model of the world, where
>> the political powers more or less get to decide who can have a business
>> and who can't.
> That political power to decide also exists in the US. Case in point
> would be the Yugo. Another example - the government put the old
> Volkswagen bug out of business long before the Yugo.
I believe that the US government picking winners and losers was the
point I was trying to make. You want the government regulating us to a
better world, but what it regulates us to is usually crap. It's about
insider business making the cheapest crap possible and blocking us from
other choices. "Competition is a sin" or so the quote goes.
dsi1
>
> My recent machined part sourced from china is roughly 1/5 of what US
> vendors quoted it at. It was supposed to have been a low volume runner,
> but that's changed since the design phase.
>
> Anyway, what I am seeing in photos doesn't have me convinced it's fully
> machined. However people must be breaking/damaging them a lot given how
> many places are selling replacements, both apple and knockoffs.
>
How do you think the housing is made?
Brent
I'm not sure from the photographs. Some of it looks machined while other
areas don't. right now, without having one in my hand I would say it's
blanked close to the final dimensions with one sort of casting
operation or another and then machined. the steps on the inside, the
close up photos look like it was milled given the fillet at the root of
each step and the sharp corner at the top. I would expect those steps
to have fillets top and bottom if they were as-cast. It was clearly then
put through some kind of finishing operation to give it that texture and
color. The outside surface however would be very costly to achieve
through machining alone to achieve that curvature and surface finish
before the final texturing/finishing.
N8N
> Have an '89 Cressida with 160K plus miles on it, running the factory
> fuel pump. No issues currently but looking to take a long road trip
> and seems like a good idea to do some pre-emptive wrench turning.
>
> Airtex for $130 something, Also getting the tank gasket and the pickup
> filter.
>
> Autozone is garbage - period, that I need to go with either Toyota
> parts or what he called "A line" parts from someone *other* than the
> well known places like Autozone, Advance/Discount auto parts, Bumper
> To Bumper. The problem with anything from Toyota obviously is the
> cost. I've never priced a valve stem cap there but I feel reasonably
> certain it wouldn't be under $20. Okay, maybe a slight exaggeration.
>
> What say you? You think I'd be asking for trouble installing the
> Airtex unit? Any other brands you recommend?
>
> Does the term A-line mean anything to you?
>
I would stay away from Airtex branded anything just based on my
experiences with their aftermarket mechanical fuel pumps. They *all*
leak, and one scared the hell out of me once...
~wavy lines~
I was putting together my '55 Studebaker after a motor swap to a high-
compression 289; I needed a fuel pump to get it running. Friend of
mine had an aftermarket Airtex pump intended for a '57 Golden Hawk
sitting on the shelf. I borrowed it until I could manage to rebuild a
real R1 pump for myself just to see how the car drove. Since my
engine did not have a supercharger I left the boost reference fitting
above the diaphragm open. Got about three miles down the road and
came to a long uphill stretch. Had my foot in it pretty good and all
of a sudden all this smoke comes rolling up around the holes in the
floor for the pedals, around the shifter, etc. Here the stem seal on
the Airtex pump was faulty and there was oil sitting on the back of
the diaphragm, and once I started going up hill it sloshed out the
boost reference fitting hole, and right onto the driver's side
downpipe. Scared the yell out of me, it did.
I rebuilt a factory Carter R1 pump and have had no issues since.
Have heard from many, many other Studebaker owners of their disdain
for Airtex pumps, mostly involving a similar problem and/or leaking of
oil around the pivot pin or the pivot pin walking out in use.
Now maybe their replacement parts for more modern vehicles are better,
but the uniformly crap quality of the Stude fuel pumps leaves a bad
taste in my mouth.
Why do you feel you need to replace the fuel pump, anyway? Is it
giving any signs of impending failure?
nate
Scott Dorsey
A lot of that stuff, and I haven't seen this part so I cannot address this
one in particular, is die-cast and _then machined_.
This is cheaper than machining out of billet because there is less waste,
but gives you machined precision. However, it limits your material
characteristics somewhat.
jim
>
> The reason is because corporate suits think engineering and
> manufacturing are fungible commodities. They don't
> value it and they see a bigger bonus for themselves by moving
> manufacturing to china. To them it's all the same but X costs less than
> Y. Not to mention that the economic central planners have done
> everything to favor that action from currencies to taxes as well. The
> reason for has nothing to do with free market and everything to do with
> unfree market, politics and other meddling combined with the
> typical fundamental ignorance and personality traits of who rises to the
> top in political systems such as governments and large corporations.
Lets assume that be true. Are you suggesting outlawing large
corporations? I know you do want to outlaw large government but this
is a democracy and the majority doesn't agree with you. The average
voter sees the removal of the FDA, USDA, DOD, etc would be a huge
invitation for mischief, wickedness and mayhem to takeover.
>
> > People will go out of their way to save a penny even if it results in buying
> > poor quality junk that falls apart. And they do it over and over again, never
> > seeming to learn their lesson that buying junk costs more in the long run.
>
> Are we talking corporate suits here or everyday people? Seems like
> you've switched back to people who have to be more concerned with having
> to pay the rent than buying the best made stuff. In that case, look
> to the devaluation of the US dollar and other economic manipulations
> from central planning. It's cheap crap that is currently holding
> people's standard of living together. Sure they may end up spending more
> in the long run, but they don't have the capital now to buy for the long
> run. You're not going to find many people driving the lowest priced Kia model
> because they are just buying on price but could afford to buy a new
> Lincoln.
Well that would be what the Lincoln dealer wants everyone to believe -
but that doesn't make it true.
>
> > Unfortunately this is the case not only for the customer but for the people
> > importing and retailing too. And, as a consequence, it makes it more difficult
> > to find actual quality products because the market does not demand quality,
> > the market demands low prices.
>
> The free market demands both, high quality at a low price. There are
> people who accept more low price than high quality, there are some who
> demand more high quality than low price. But those are individual
> decisions made on a case by case basis. When a giant sucking sound in
> one direction appears or some sort of bubble it means some great force
> is distorting the market.
That is what it means to you. If you see behavior you don't like -
blame the government. If you see behavior that appeals to you credit
the free market. Reality plays little role in these judgments. But
markets are not always benevolent like you believe. Markets have no
ability to see the future they learn by disaster. The vast majority
of people are not willing to take the risks that an absolutely free
market creates. It takes a crop failure for farmers to get the market
price they need. So people starve for a year and then the next year
more food is grown and the marketplace has done its thing. That in a
nutshell explains why the US grows a large surplus of food. There are
massive government programs to ensure that over-supply continues to
exist. The alternative - occasional opportunity to go hungry - is not
what most people are into.
>
> As to cheap crap and regulation, when government steps in with
> regulation, then what is above and below the standard often becomes
> forbidden. The FDA does that time and time again, and when it's not
> forbidden to exceed the standards it's often forbidden to use that as a
> selling point. It is a great way to protect politically favored
> companies from new upstarts that want to make a better mouse
> trap. Example? Want to make safe raw milk? It can be done, but it's
> expensive. Some people will pay that premium. Guess what? It's illegal.
> Want to test every cow for mad cow for premium beef? That's illegal too,
> must follow the standard to the letter, no better, no worse.
>
>
That is a fair characterization of the incentives the government puts
in place to control that part of the market. However, a person can
legally procure raw milk and tested beef if the person really wants to
make the effort. Most folks don't.
dsi1
Thanks for the info. I can't say if there's a coating on it or not or
how the finish surface is achieved. The edges feel as if there's no
coating nor are there any wearing through of the coating. The home
button on the glass surface is so well integrated that it seems to be
one piece although that's not possible. I have seen this on other
plastic pieces before - the material is so stable and the clearances so
small that the seams are invisible. Beautiful stuff.
dsi1
You could be right about this - it does seem more sensible. :-)
> --scott
Brent
>
>>
>> The reason is because corporate suits think engineering and
>> manufacturing are fungible commodities. They don't
>> value it and they see a bigger bonus for themselves by moving
>> manufacturing to china. To them it's all the same but X costs less than
>> Y. Not to mention that the economic central planners have done
>> everything to favor that action from currencies to taxes as well. The
>> reason for has nothing to do with free market and everything to do with
>> unfree market, politics and other meddling combined with the
>> typical fundamental ignorance and personality traits of who rises to the
>> top in political systems such as governments and large corporations.
>
> Lets assume that be true. Are you suggesting outlawing large
> corporations?
I'm not going to sit here answering your strawmanish questions.
Seriously, I was pretty damn clear that what I favor is free markets
where government doesn't take sides or give companies or corporations
small or large advantages. If that's how you're going to open the rest
isn't worth my time.
Brent
It doesn't look like coating, more of a tumbling or blasting type
process.
jim
>
> People buy the quality/price ratio with regards to the specific item,
> how they will use it, how often they will use it, its cosmetic
> properties, and many other factors that vary from person to person and
> over time. This is why free markets offer such wide selections. When the
> selections narrow it's time to look for a reason, for some powerful
> force that is distorting the market in some way. Why are we getting lots
> of made in china crap? Could it be that people's real wages are
> declining while tax, trade, and other policies, laws, and regulations
> favor manufacturing in China and limit what quality people can afford?
You are paranoid. It is the market that is buying Chines goods. The
government could impose tariffs. It could bomb China too. Just because
the government refrains from bombing China you interpret that as
helping China?
>
> >> > The same principal holds true in the US. If it weren't
> >> > for massive government regulation the average car sold in the US would
> >> > be different than it currently is. The most popular cars might cost
> >> > about $4000 and would start to fall apart as soon as you drove it from
> >> > the car dealership. If you wanted a reliable car you would need to pay
> >> > around $30,000 and very few people would do that voluntarily. For
> >> > $30000 you would get a car that is as reliable as what you currently
> >> > pay about $20K. It would cost more because fewer would be built.
>
> >> Wrong again. First, the regulation has nothing to do with how long a car
> >> lasts. It's possible to make a cheap-ass crappy car that complies with
> >> all the regulations that presently exist in the USA. Remember the
> >> Yugo?
>
> > The Yugo cars were for a while imported to the US. The company that
> > made the car were in business prior to that and after that. They make
> > money selling cars. They just couldn't make money selling them in the
> > US.
>
> Why would that be if everyone in the US buys on price like you wrpte
I wrote that some people would buy it.
>
> > Were it not for US regulations a car like that would probably sell for
> > half of what it did and would continue to sell in the US market. And
> > no, making the Yugo comply with US regulations certainly didn't make
> > the Yugo more dependable, last longer or a better deal for the
> > consumer. I didn't say anything like that. One could argue that the US
> > regulations did pretty much the opposite, but the Yugo is still
> > evidence there are plenty of people who would buy a cheap cars if they
> > were available.
>
> You are arguing the only reason that we don't have the choice between
> crap and crap is because of our dear leaders in DC regulating and
> controlling. That's false.
No I think you are just misinterpreting reality
> > One of the things you are overlooking is that government management
> > has shaped the market more than it has shaped the cars.
>
> I'm not overlooking that at all, in fact it's the crux of my argument.
> That the market has been shaped. You just think it's for the better, but
> all the china made crap we see today is a direct result of their
> shaping.
I didn't say I think it is for the better. I said if it were to
disappear the majority would disapprove. I mean suppose they just
dumped the TSA and said " we don't need that - let the free market
take care of security". Now that would get some people thrown out of
Washington. I don't consider myself part of that majority but that
doesn't mean I'm going to share your delusions.
>
> > The car market
> > would be much different without the massive infrastructure to support
> > the automobile, and the free market would have never built that
> > infrastructure. Without that infrastructure people would be satisfied
> > to purchase cars that go only 40 mph and drive like trucks.
>
> That's your pro government central planning speculation.
It's not mine. It's the majorities.
>BTW, The
> central planners never created any of the breakthroughs that occured.
> Now were some implemented by government? Sure, that's how the systems
> are set up, to use the force of the state, it doesn't have to be that
> way, but that's how it's been and becoming increasingly more so that
> way. Has that system made us richer than the alternative?
The alternative would be mostly dirt roads.
>
> As to driving and road systems we can see what the political system does
> by eliminating competition. Look at the US interstate system, compared
> to the German system, it's cheap crap.
HA HA HA . Like Germany's free market system built their roads. You
are a hoot. And of course you arrived at this because you like no
speed limits and therefore you conclude it must come from the free
market.
>Look at how much better German
> cars are at high speed because of the lack of control freakish limits on
> velocity.
So that's it. This whole government thing is just a grand elaborate
scheme to keep you from driving fast. Remove speed limits and we would
never hear from you again. Sounds like a plan - I'd vote for that.
> What would have road system competition given us or even them?
> Imagine if the road system we got was because of what people decided to
> pay for instead of what was best for politics? You might
> think we would have dirt cart paths as they would be cheapest, but even
> advances in bicycles got people clammering for better roads.
Exactly. And what does clamoring get from the free market? How many
bicycle paths did the free market build as a result of this clamoring?
>
> Ever notice how commerical capital equipment sold to private companies
> is made better, holds up longer, and needs fewer repairs and can be
> repaired when it does? How equipment that businesses buy is designed so
> people can do more in less time? How might that apply to roads built and
> owned by the private sector? Would they hold up longer or be designed to
> create lots of jobs fixing and redoing roads? Would they be designed to
> get the most customers through per minute or left for decades with
> traffic jam causing design defects?
Yup. People are still clamoring. And the free market is still not
going to do squat.
>
> >> When a market has nothing but crap to choose from you'll find that in
> >> most if not all cases it's a market where government and government
> >> regulation and intervention has limited/eliminated competition in some
> >> way. When people are free to start their own businesses, set their own
> >> prices, etc and so forth someone will see that the market is dominated
> >> by crap or overpriced crap and do it better.
>
> > So is your thesis that the Chinese produce crap and the US government
> > is what forces business to get their goods made in China?
>
> Nice strawmen. 1) The word I used was encouraged, not forced. I've
> already been over it in this thread. 2) I clearly stated not everything
> from china is crap, there is just a high likelyhood of crap.
It doesn't matter if all of it or none of it is crap. People are
buying it. Your claim that the government is behind it is strictly a
result of your belief that anything you don't like must be caused by
government. I don't have to approve of what the government does to see
the stupidity of that position.
>
> >> Remember China is still communist, it's the model of the world, where
> >> the political powers more or less get to decide who can have a business
> >> and who can't.
>
> > That political power to decide also exists in the US. Case in point
> > would be the Yugo. Another example - the government put the old
> > Volkswagen bug out of business long before the Yugo.
>
> I believe that the US government picking winners and losers was the
> point I was trying to make. You want the government regulating us to a
> better world, but what it regulates us to is usually crap. It's about
> insider business making the cheapest crap possible and blocking us from
> other choices. "Competition is a sin" or so the quote goes.
When did I say I want the government regulating anything? I'm just
pointing out how stupid you are to believe that if the government were
to stop regulating the markets most of your fellow Americans would not
approve. If they found out you were the cause of it they would use
their new won freedom to string you up from a lamp post.
Brent
>
>>
>> People buy the quality/price ratio with regards to the specific item,
>> how they will use it, how often they will use it, its cosmetic
>> properties, and many other factors that vary from person to person and
>> over time. This is why free markets offer such wide selections. When the
>> selections narrow it's time to look for a reason, for some powerful
>> force that is distorting the market in some way. Why are we getting lots
>> of made in china crap? Could it be that people's real wages are
>> declining while tax, trade, and other policies, laws, and regulations
>> favor manufacturing in China and limit what quality people can afford?
> You are paranoid.
Of course I have a mental illness because I don't see things the
politically correct way. Like in many tyrannies and empires those
who don't agree are mentally ill.
> It is the market that is buying Chines goods. The
> government could impose tariffs. It could bomb China too. Just because
> the government refrains from bombing China you interpret that as
> helping China?
Still it at with the strawman questions. I suggest you actually look up
a few things with regard to trade with China. First look into the most
favored nation status, then look into the peg between china's currency
and the federal reserve note, aka US dollar. Then look into the taxes
and tarriffs and trade agreements. Then look into the regulatory
environment US manufacturing has to live in. Keep going... look up
China's domestic content laws to sell product there. Oh and don't
forget, China is exempt from the carbon and energy taxes proposed for
the world, its exempt from CO2 limits as well. Oh and look further to
how China's government lets buisnesses foul the air and water and
otherwise run right over people. All these regulations, laws,
agreements, taxes, etc and so forth created by the US government,
the government of China, world bodies, treaties and more result in
conditions that favor manufacturing in China. When you figure out many
of the ways manufacturing in china is encouraged, come back and I might
pay further attention to what you have to say.
When there is a distortion you should look to find why that distortion
is there instead of just thinking people love to buy cheap crap and I
don't know what your solution to it is, but it sounds like you want to
regulate products such that cheap crap can no longer be sold. that
products that don't meet your quality standards are removed from the
market. That's great. What are the people who can't afford your minimum
going to do? Eat cake? We go back to a system where craftspeople make
very expensive and high quality goods for the wealthy and everyone else
does without? Think about that a little.
Once again, your opening tells me I I've already spent too much time
with you.
dr_jeff
Really? The gov't doesn't require a warranty. In the old days, the
warranties were 12,000 mi or 1 year, and only gradually went up.
Jeff
> -jim
jim
>
> On 2010-12-16, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m> wrote:
> > Brent wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> People buy the quality/price ratio with regards to the specific item,
> >> how they will use it, how often they will use it, its cosmetic
> >> properties, and many other factors that vary from person to person and
> >> over time. This is why free markets offer such wide selections. When the
> >> selections narrow it's time to look for a reason, for some powerful
> >> force that is distorting the market in some way. Why are we getting lots
> >> of made in china crap? Could it be that people's real wages are
> >> declining while tax, trade, and other policies, laws, and regulations
> >> favor manufacturing in China and limit what quality people can afford?
>
> > You are paranoid.
>
> Of course I have a mental illness because I don't see things the
> politically correct way. Like in many tyrannies and empires those
> who don't agree are mentally ill.
If you weren't so paranoid you would grasp that I am not a tyrannical
emperor, just nobody making a casual observation.
>
> > It is the market that is buying Chines goods. The
> > government could impose tariffs. It could bomb China too. Just because
> > the government refrains from bombing China you interpret that as
> > helping China?
>
> Still it at with the strawman questions. I suggest you actually look up
> a few things with regard to trade with China. First look into the most
> favored nation status, then look into the peg between china's currency
> and the federal reserve note, aka US dollar. Then look into the taxes
> and tarriffs and trade agreements. Then look into the regulatory
> environment US manufacturing has to live in. Keep going... look up
> China's domestic content laws to sell product there. Oh and don't
> forget, China is exempt from the carbon and energy taxes proposed for
> the world, its exempt from CO2 limits as well. Oh and look further to
> how China's government lets buisnesses foul the air and water and
> otherwise run right over people. All these regulations, laws,
> agreements, taxes, etc and so forth created by the US government,
> the government of China, world bodies, treaties and more result in
> conditions that favor manufacturing in China. When you figure out many
> of the ways manufacturing in china is encouraged, come back and I might
> pay further attention to what you have to say.
All of that is nonsense. There are no carbon limits or carbon taxes
and who doesn't have Most Favored Nation Status besides a few
countries like Cuba, Iran and N. Korea? The goods coming from China
are subject to the same laws in regard to safety defects, warranty and
fraud claims etc. US manufacturing is still the largest in the world
and has been growing continuously ever since WW2.
Sounds like you want to impose tariffs against China. Doesn't take
much to get you to abandon the idea of free trade.
>
> When there is a distortion you should look to find why that distortion
> is there instead of just thinking people love to buy cheap crap and I
> don't know what your solution to it is,
I don't think there is a solution. Should the government step in to
tell people what to buy?
>but it sounds like you want to
> regulate products such that cheap crap can no longer be sold. that
> products that don't meet your quality standards are removed from the
> market. That's great. What are the people who can't afford your minimum
> going to do? Eat cake? We go back to a system where craftspeople make
> very expensive and high quality goods for the wealthy and everyone else
> does without? Think about that a little.
No you are misreading both reality and what I said about it. I did
point out that the government regulation of the auto industry and
transportation in general has raised prices of the automobile. But
there is more to it than that. Without the government to build and
facilitate the infrastructure and resource management we wouldn't have
this massive economy built around the automobile. I never said that
was a good thing. It is what it is. Although one can argue that the
dependence on the automobile and the sprawling suburbs it spawned
eventually may become a liability, it is also easy to argue the free
market would never have got where it is alone.
Ray O
"muzician21" <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:403baeb4-1f86-4804...@35g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
> Have an '89 Cressida with 160K plus miles on it, running the factory
> fuel pump. No issues currently but looking to take a long road trip
> and seems like a good idea to do some pre-emptive wrench turning.
>
> Autozone had two, an "Asian Manf'd" for like $160 something, and an
> Airtex for $130 something, Also getting the tank gasket and the pickup
> filter.
>
> My brother who does car stuff adamantly insists that anything from
> Autozone is garbage - period, that I need to go with either Toyota
> parts or what he called "A line" parts from someone *other* than the
> well known places like Autozone, Advance/Discount auto parts, Bumper
> To Bumper. The problem with anything from Toyota obviously is the
> cost. I've never priced a valve stem cap there but I feel reasonably
> certain it wouldn't be under $20. Okay, maybe a slight exaggeration.
>
> What say you? You think I'd be asking for trouble installing the
> Airtex unit? Any other brands you recommend?
>
> Does the term A-line mean anything to you?
>
> Thanks
Toyota fuel pumps rarely fail. Leave the fuel pump alone, check the spark
plugs, high tension wires, ATF, brakes, tires, battery, etc. instead.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
jim beam
> Brent wrote:
<snip for clarity>
> US manufacturing is still the largest in the world
> and has been growing continuously ever since WW2.
output in dollar terms per worker has gone up continuously, but total
output has not. and manufacturing employment has dropped from nearly
20MM in 1980 to about 12MM today. if you start getting into the
analysis of /what/ that employment is, it gets even worse, with the
militarily strategically important sectors of electronics,
communications and even aerospace being seriously undermined.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Tegger
news:ieeq9k$pm9$3...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> Toyota fuel pumps rarely fail. Leave the fuel pump alone, check the
> spark plugs, high tension wires, ATF, brakes, tires, battery, etc.
> instead.
Which is pretty much what I told him. Along with accessory drive belts (one
of which drives the water pump), rad hoses, and other important stuff.
--
Tegger
Scott Dorsey
Large corporations are the problem, but they are also the solution.
Corporations, though, do what the stockholders want them to do. Because
the current system today involves so many complex securities rather than
direct stock investment, often the stockholders have no idea what they
are actually investing in and they have no idea what is going on beyond
the stock price and, at most, the current quarter's earning's report.
This is not a recipe for a well-run business, this is a recipe for a
corporation devoted entirely to short-term profits at the expense of
actually growing the business.
Until shareholders are actually able to see where their money is going
and have some interest in the corporations themselves, until they are
able to come to annual meetings and point out that shutting down plants
and moving production overseas is not good for long-term profits and
that when corporate officers vote themselves enormous severance packages
that it encourages them to leave, this will not change.
Brent
The big problem is government. The easy way to make profits is to use
government. It's the political means vs. the productive means. The more
the political means is used the worse it is for the great majority of
people long term.
> This is not a recipe for a well-run business, this is a recipe for a
> corporation devoted entirely to short-term profits at the expense of
> actually growing the business.
We live under a short term environment due to the monetary system. A
dollar today won't buy as much tommorrow. This encourages all sorts of
short term decision making. From big corporations to individuals. The
building of capital is discouraged, spending/consumption is encouraged.
Plus there is all sorts of government meddling in the economy that make
it very difficult to project what things will be in 10 or even 3 years.
It just leads more into the get-while-the-getting is good mentality.
> Until shareholders are actually able to see where their money is going
> and have some interest in the corporations themselves, until they are
> able to come to annual meetings and point out that shutting down plants
> and moving production overseas is not good for long-term profits and
> that when corporate officers vote themselves enormous severance packages
> that it encourages them to leave, this will not change.
I believe that goes back to the monetary system as well. It's what
drives wall street and that driver pushes through into other decisions.
jim
jim beam wrote:
>
> On 12/16/2010 03:24 PM, jim wrote:
> > Brent wrote:
> <snip for clarity>
>
> > US manufacturing is still the largest in the world
> > and has been growing continuously ever since WW2.
>
> output in dollar terms per worker has gone up continuously, but total
> output has not.
Total manufacturing output has grown.
> and manufacturing employment has dropped from nearly
> 20MM in 1980 to about 12MM today.
In the last 9 years the number of manufacturing jobs has shrunk. 40
years ago the Gary Ind. steel mills employed 50,000 steel workers today
Gary steel mills produce about the same amount of steel as 40 years ago
but there are only 6000 steel workers. The main factor in the decrease
of manufacturing jobs is not due to a decrease in manufacturing output
(which hasn't decreased), but an increase in the amount of production
per worker.
> if you start getting into the
> analysis of /what/ that employment is, it gets even worse, with the
> militarily strategically important sectors of electronics,
> communications and even aerospace being seriously undermined.
The vast majority of goods coming from China are the type of goods found
on the shelves at Walmart. They are mostly low tech and if they are high
tech it is mostly the low tech part of the production chain that comes
from China. If you have an Ipod made in China most of the value comes
from components made in places like Japan and Malaysia. The Chinese are
assembling those components and shipping them to the US so they count as
Chinese exports even though most of the value came from Japan or
Malaysia. If the Chinese start making the high-tech components as well
as assembling them, it will be the Japanese and Malaysians that are
hurting.
>
> --
> nomina rutrum rutrum
jim beam
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 12/16/2010 03:24 PM, jim wrote:
>>> Brent wrote:
>> <snip for clarity>
>>
>>> US manufacturing is still the largest in the world
>>> and has been growing continuously ever since WW2.
>>
>> output in dollar terms per worker has gone up continuously, but total
>> output has not.
>
> Total manufacturing output has grown.
cite your source. all the propaganda always states output per worker,
not total production. and "total production" includes things like power
generation, which is not by any reasonable argument, something tangible
that we could export. especially when its price doubles over 10 years,
creating a doubling of "value" for exact status quo in production capacity.
>
>> and manufacturing employment has dropped from nearly
>> 20MM in 1980 to about 12MM today.
>
> In the last 9 years the number of manufacturing jobs has shrunk. 40
> years ago the Gary Ind. steel mills employed 50,000 steel workers today
> Gary steel mills produce about the same amount of steel as 40 years ago
> but there are only 6000 steel workers. The main factor in the decrease
> of manufacturing jobs is not due to a decrease in manufacturing output
> (which hasn't decreased), but an increase in the amount of production
> per worker.
i understand that - that's why i said it. see above. but productivity
per worker != total productivity output.
>
>> if you start getting into the
>> analysis of /what/ that employment is, it gets even worse, with the
>> militarily strategically important sectors of electronics,
>> communications and even aerospace being seriously undermined.
>
>
> The vast majority of goods coming from China are the type of goods found
> on the shelves at Walmart. They are mostly low tech and if they are high
> tech it is mostly the low tech part of the production chain that comes
> from China. If you have an Ipod made in China most of the value comes
> from components made in places like Japan and Malaysia. The Chinese are
> assembling those components and shipping them to the US so they count as
> Chinese exports even though most of the value came from Japan or
> Malaysia. If the Chinese start making the high-tech components as well
> as assembling them, it will be the Japanese and Malaysians that are
> hurting.
no dude. when dell and hp and motorola ship their manufacturing to
china in order to take advantage of artificially low labor rates, those
companies are required by the communist party to also relocate their r&d
functions so their technology can be stolen too. those jobs are being
lifted from the u.s., not just today, but forever. the malaysians don't
have any native high tech the chinese want. and the japanese absolutely
[and very smartly] refuse to ship any r&d out there so their play,
unlike ours is strictly labor only.
looking forward, as tektronix, raytheon, timken, g.m. ship their r&d and
manufacturing to china, as boeing ship r&d and manufacturing to china,
those are not the loss of low end jobs here, those are the loss of our
strategic superpower status and military independence. "productivity"
doesn't enter into it.
>
>>
>> --
>> nomina rutrum rutrum
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Brent
> looking forward, as tektronix, raytheon, timken, g.m. ship their r&d and
> manufacturing to china, as boeing ship r&d and manufacturing to china,
> those are not the loss of low end jobs here, those are the loss of our
> strategic superpower status and military independence. "productivity"
> doesn't enter into it.
Don't forget all the immigrants that 'must' be brought in to do the R&D
work that remains in the USA.
jim
jim beam wrote:
>
> On 12/17/2010 07:16 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/16/2010 03:24 PM, jim wrote:
> >>> Brent wrote:
> >> <snip for clarity>
> >>
> >>> US manufacturing is still the largest in the world
> >>> and has been growing continuously ever since WW2.
> >>
> >> output in dollar terms per worker has gone up continuously, but total
> >> output has not.
> >
> > Total manufacturing output has grown.
>
> cite your source. all the propaganda always states output per worker,
> not total production. and "total production" includes things like power
> generation, which is not by any reasonable argument, something tangible
> that we could export. especially when its price doubles over 10 years,
> creating a doubling of "value" for exact status quo in production capacity.
>
Manufacturing output tends to drop in a recession so there was a sharp
drop in manufacturing at the end of 2008. That was the largest and
longest decline in manufacturing since the 1930's depression. So yes
there was a peak in output in 2008 but about 2/3 of that lost output has
been regained in the last year and in another year it will likely once
again be at an all time high. If you look at the long term trend US
manufacturing output has been increasing steadily since WW2.
And yes if you look at worker productivity the numbers are much more
impressive. The productivity per worker in the US is way above any other
country.
jim beam
that is a whole different issue because our lower education system
regularly fails our own. 95% of math phd's produced in our universities
go to non-nationals. that is, by any measure, absolutely ridiculous.
the fact that we /need/ to import is a symptom, not a cause.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
jim beam
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 12/17/2010 07:16 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/16/2010 03:24 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>> Brent wrote:
>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>
>>>>> US manufacturing is still the largest in the world
>>>>> and has been growing continuously ever since WW2.
>>>>
>>>> output in dollar terms per worker has gone up continuously, but total
>>>> output has not.
>>>
>>> Total manufacturing output has grown.
>>
>> cite your source. all the propaganda always states output per worker,
>> not total production. and "total production" includes things like power
>> generation, which is not by any reasonable argument, something tangible
>> that we could export. especially when its price doubles over 10 years,
>> creating a doubling of "value" for exact status quo in production capacity.
>>
>
> Manufacturing output tends to drop in a recession so there was a sharp
> drop in manufacturing at the end of 2008. That was the largest and
> longest decline in manufacturing since the 1930's depression. So yes
> there was a peak in output in 2008 but about 2/3 of that lost output has
> been regained in the last year and in another year it will likely once
> again be at an all time high. If you look at the long term trend US
> manufacturing output has been increasing steadily since WW2.
again, cite your source. that's not what i've seen.
>
> And yes if you look at worker productivity the numbers are much more
> impressive. The productivity per worker in the US is way above any other
> country.
again, cite your source. germany is by usual measure much more
productive than the u.s.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
jim beam
mean while:
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101217/ts_afp/japanmilitarychinankorea_20101217111853>
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
jim beam
"We forgot that the more stable and safe way to go is to make things."
Bill Gross, PIMCO
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101216/bs_nm/us_usa_economy_special>
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Brent
The condition of the school system is part of an overall agenda that
comes right out of the foundations, thinktanks, policy groups, etc.
The lack of people going into that work I believe is because not only is
the educational requirement and work more difficult/demanding than other
fields, but it's less rewarded (over all, career wise) than other fields
talented people can go into and looked down upon culturally in many
aspects. Why beat your head into the wall trying to make stuff when
finance, stock/commodity trading, etc and so are so much more rewarded?
jim
jim beam wrote:
\
>
> again, cite your source. that's not what i've seen.
Try the bureau of labor statistics.
jim beam
i'm asking a serious question and that is just a brush-off.
when you say "Total manufacturing output has grown", where do you get
that from? we agree on productivity per person, which the department of
labor will quote you, but where does your "manufacturing output" number
come from?
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
jim beam
> On 2010-12-17, jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On 12/17/2010 09:21 AM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2010-12-17, jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> looking forward, as tektronix, raytheon, timken, g.m. ship their r&d and
>>>> manufacturing to china, as boeing ship r&d and manufacturing to china,
>>>> those are not the loss of low end jobs here, those are the loss of our
>>>> strategic superpower status and military independence. "productivity"
>>>> doesn't enter into it.
>>>
>>> Don't forget all the immigrants that 'must' be brought in to do the R&D
>>> work that remains in the USA.
>>>
>>
>> that is a whole different issue because our lower education system
>> regularly fails our own. 95% of math phd's produced in our universities
>> go to non-nationals. that is, by any measure, absolutely ridiculous.
>> the fact that we /need/ to import is a symptom, not a cause.
>
> The condition of the school system is part of an overall agenda that
> comes right out of the foundations, thinktanks, policy groups, etc.
juxtapose california and texas. texas used to be in the tank and now is
one of the leading states. california used to be on top and is now in
the tank. that is no accident.
>
> The lack of people going into that work I believe is because not only is
> the educational requirement and work more difficult/demanding than other
> fields, but it's less rewarded (over all, career wise) than other fields
> talented people can go into and looked down upon culturally in many
> aspects. Why beat your head into the wall trying to make stuff when
> finance, stock/commodity trading, etc and so are so much more rewarded?
indeed - i know that situation personally. but it's undermining our
long term economy /and/ military security. the only thing that's kept
us afloat in that regard are the old farts - but they are rapidly
retiring. once they're gone, there's no one to replace them and we're
stuffed.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
jim
jim beam wrote:
>
> On 12/17/2010 11:29 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> > \
> >>
> >> again, cite your source. that's not what i've seen.
> >
> > Try the bureau of labor statistics.
>
> i'm asking a serious question and that is just a brush-off.
Look at Table 2 Output by major industry sector
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art4full.pdf
jim beam
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 12/17/2010 11:29 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>> \
>>>>
>>>> again, cite your source. that's not what i've seen.
>>>
>>> Try the bureau of labor statistics.
>>
>> i'm asking a serious question and that is just a brush-off.
>
> Look at Table 2 Output by major industry sector
> http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art4full.pdf
that doesn't answer the question. not even remotely.
you said:
"US manufacturing is still the largest in the world
and has been growing continuously ever since WW2."
i asked you three times to back that up. the first two times you simply
ignored the request. and this time, your cite is ridiculously off-base.
not only was that report written in 2005 using "chain-weighted" block
stats, it purports to look forwards a whole decade using only one decade
of history!!! no technical statistician would put their name to garbage
like that, let alone publish it - it would end their career. and i
think those projections like "The following manufacturing subsectors are
expected to lead the pace of output growth: computer and electronic
product manufacturing (12.7 percent); plastics and rubber products
manufacturing (3.7 percent)..." when in fact we've seen both sectors
desert domestic production simply illustrate the point.
>
>
>
>
>
>> when you say "Total manufacturing output has grown", where do you get
>> that from? we agree on productivity per person, which the department of
>> labor will quote you, but where does your "manufacturing output" number
>> come from?
>>
>> --
>> nomina rutrum rutrum
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
jim
I had no expectation directing you to the bureau of labor statistics
data would do anything but baffle you, but it did shut you up for a
couple of days.
Their predictions appear to fairly accurate. In the case of computer and
electronics they predict a decline in jobs in that sector and at the
same time an increase in output. You have got it into your head that is
an impossibility. Oh well........
jim beam
er, if you think that a single gross aggregated decade gives you a
statistical basis on which to predict a future decade, you're either
delusional or retarded.
>
> Their predictions appear to fairly accurate.
only if you live on a plant where domestic computer and electronic
product manufacturing having /not/ increased by the predicted 12.7
percent can somehow perversely be seen as being accurate. and that's
not any planet i'm familiar with.
> In the case of computer and
> electronics they predict a decline in jobs in that sector and at the
> same time an increase in output. You have got it into your head that is
> an impossibility. Oh well........
that is a spectacular statement - their predicting an increase in
domestic production [which is NOT productivity per employee, the only
figure you seem to be able to talk about], then being proven wrong, is
by any normal measure seen as a failure. your apparent inability to
differentiate "production" from "productivity" can be categorized in the
same way.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
jim
jim beam wrote:
>
> er, if you think that a single gross aggregated decade gives you a
> statistical basis on which to predict a future decade, you're either
> delusional or retarded.
You are the one one who believes that not me.
jim beam
apparently you're too fucking stupid to comprehend what that statement
means.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum