Cop/Pop a Squat
JoAnne Schmitz
played by Danny DeVito tell someone to "pop a squat," inviting the person
to sit down.
The phrase I'd always heard was "cop a squat" -- "cop" meaning to take, and
"squat" meaning to sit. Literally, "take a seat."
Looking on Google, it appears that "pop a squat" is actually a more popular
phrase (13,500 for "pop" versus 10,500 hits for "cop"), but it generally
refers to squatting in order to urinate or, less commonly, defecate.
Google helpfully provides images for the "pop" version.
Apparently there is some debate on various message boards about pop versus
cop. Most seem to think cop predates pop, and many suggest that pop is a
misheard variant.
In one discussion, a teacher wanted to know if it was okay to tell his
second-grade students to "pop a squat" and someone tells him to use "cop a
squat" instead. Potential for sitcom style hilarity in that situation
seems inbuilt.
-JoAnne
--
Maria C.
[...]
> ... Potential for sitcom style hilarity in that
> situation seems inbuilt.
"Inbuilt," apparently, is chiefly BrE. In the US, "built-in" is used
(with few exceptions, as far as I know).
How about in Oz, New Z., S. Afr., Scot., Ire., Can., and any other
English-speaking areas represented in AUE?
Maria C., for whom "inbuilt" prompts the thought of "ingrown," as in
toenails.
John Varela
(in article <iLTZk.10227$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>):
Good on you for changing the thread subject.
--
John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.
R H Draney
Do you have "infill", the term for putting houses or other structures into the
empty spaces missed by earlier construction?...r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Maria C.
> Maria C. filted:
>> JoAnne Schmitz wrote, in part:
>>
>> [...]
>>> ... Potential for sitcom style hilarity in that
>>> situation seems inbuilt.
>>
>> "Inbuilt," apparently, is chiefly BrE. In the US, "built-in" is used
>> (with few exceptions, as far as I know).
>>
>> How about in Oz, New Z., S. Afr., Scot., Ire., Can., and any other
>> English-speaking areas represented in AUE?
>>
>> Maria C., for whom "inbuilt" prompts the thought of "ingrown," as in
>> toenails.
>
> Do you have "infill", the term for putting houses or other structures
> into the empty spaces missed by earlier construction?...r
I've never heard "infill" used. (But the term reminds me of "landfill.")
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
>
> Good on you for changing the thread subject.
Thank you. I try to do that from time to time.
--
Maria C.
John Varela
(in article <CeVZk.10239$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>):
Man, this thread is drifting fast.
Infill is common here. There aren't many desirable lots left inside
the Washington Beltway, so many builders have been putting houses on
lots that had been passed over the first time.
For example, near here there is a large house, newly built on spec and
not yet sold, sitting right next to Pimmit Run. Before the house was
built, a retaining wall was put in at the base of a steep slope, and
now the back door can't be more than ten feet from that retaining wall.
And the house has to be in the flood plain of the run. I don't know
how they could get a building permit.
But if you want a new house close in, you take whatever lot you can get
or else tear down an old house to make room for the new one. There's a
lot of that going on, or was until the housing crash.
There's another alternative, often seen: take a one-story house that
has a sound foundation, gut it, and "pop the roof" to make it into a
two-story house. Many of the older houses in the DC area, such as
ours, are of solid masonry construction that can easily support a
second floor.
Frank ess
In my area, "infill" is a nasty word. Many bought nice homes near one
or another of San Diego's wonderful "canyons" that infiltrate the
mesas (level land at the top of a relatively steep incline). Most of
the canyons are public land and dedicated to parkland and "open
space", and lend character to the city. Lend wild animals to the
residential neighborhoods, as well.
Thes charming city, blessed with wonderful weather and lovely physical
aspects, mismanaged its finances and is facing serious cuts in
services, and will eventually, I fear, sell the sides of its canyons
for residential development. The infill will cause overflow in the
already insufficient and declining infrastructure. That is if there is
money left after the financial world sorts itself out:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JL05Cb02.html
--
Frank ess
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote
"Infill" as a term is new to me. That may be because there aren't that
many houses being built (and sold) in this area these days.
There are many partially-full housing subdivisions in the Detroit area.
And there are plenty of empty houses. Filling in the blank spots (empty
lots) is not needed in this economy. Most of us in this area are hoping
for an "auto bailout"; the alternative is, at best, a gradual but
extensive loss of jobs in the area.
Maria, waiting for the howls.
John Varela
(in article <2PidnavdntA4pqXU...@giganews.com>):
> Thes charming city, blessed with wonderful weather and lovely physical
> aspects, mismanaged its finances and is facing serious cuts in
> services, and will eventually, I fear, sell the sides of its canyons
> for residential development.
And will we in due course be reading in the news about more wildfires
and mudslides?
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
I never saw or heard "inbuilt" until you mentioned it.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>John Varela wrote:
>>
>> Good on you for changing the thread subject.
>
>Thank you. I try to do that from time to time.
Good girl...whoops, you're in America. Good woman, Maria.
Chuck Riggs
Why should we taxpayers, who will be paying the bill to bail out the
Big Three, believe American car makers will get it right at this
particular moment in history when they have had many years to do so,
yet have failed miserably?
Mark Brader
>>> "Inbuilt," apparently, is chiefly BrE. In the US, "built-in" is used
>>> (with few exceptions, as far as I know).
>>>
>>> How about in Oz, New Z., S. Afr., Scot., Ire., Can., and any other
>>> English-speaking areas represented in AUE?
>>>
>>> Maria C., for whom "inbuilt" prompts the thought of "ingrown," as in
>>> toenails.
>> Do you have "infill", the term for putting houses or other structures
>> into the empty spaces missed by earlier construction?...r
> I've never heard "infill" used. (But the term reminds me of "landfill.")
I've encountered "infill housing", but I forget where; "built-in" is
more normal to me than "inbuilt"; and I've never encountered either
"pop a squat" or "cop a squat" before this thread. *Now* what do I
put in the subject line?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "You can write a small letter to Grandma
m...@vex.net | in the filename." -- Forbes Burkowski
Maria C.
> Maria Conlon and R.H. Draney write:
>>>> "Inbuilt," apparently, is chiefly BrE. In the US, "built-in" is
>>>> used (with few exceptions, as far as I know).
>>>>
>>>> How about in Oz, New Z., S. Afr., Scot., Ire., Can., and any other
>>>> English-speaking areas represented in AUE?
>>>>
>>>> Maria C., for whom "inbuilt" prompts the thought of "ingrown," as
>>>> in toenails.
>
>>> Do you have "infill", the term for putting houses or other
>>> structures into the empty spaces missed by earlier construction?...r
>
>> I've never heard "infill" used. (But the term reminds me of
>> "landfill.")
>
> I've encountered "infill housing", but I forget where; "built-in" is
> more normal to me than "inbuilt"; and I've never encountered either
> "pop a squat" or "cop a squat" before this thread. *Now* what do I
> put in the subject line?
"Inbuilt built-ins cop/pop a squat"
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>> "Infill" as a term is new to me. That may be because there aren't
>> that many houses being built (and sold) in this area these days.
>>
>> There are many partially-full housing subdivisions in the Detroit
>> area. And there are plenty of empty houses. Filling in the blank
>> spots (empty lots) is not needed in this economy. Most of us in
>> this area are hoping for an "auto bailout"; the alternative is, at
>> best, a gradual but extensive loss of jobs in the area.
>>
>> Maria, waiting for the howls.
>
> Why should we taxpayers, who will be paying the bill to bail out the
> Big Three, believe American car makers will get it right at this
> particular moment in history when they have had many years to do so,
> yet have failed miserably?
Points:
1. I live here (Detroit area) and have relatives working in the auto
business; my husband retired from Ford and also worked for Chryser at
one time. I am, therefore, somewhat prejudiced in this matter. But I
don't think I'm overly so.
2. There are those who believe the automakers "had it wrong" all these
years: that the prices were too high*, that the auto workers were paid
too much; that American cars were too big/heavy to provide good gas
mileage. In any case, they felt that buying a foreign car was a wise
move (or even a retribution of sorts).
*However, I believe that it's hardly cost-consciousness when a Lexus
or a Mercedes replaces a American- or Canadian-made auto. (Also, it's
been a while since car prices were a real factor.)
3. I can see a cut in wages being reasonable; and changes to
better-mileage cars are already being done.
4. Opinion: Those who want the American car companies to go belly-up are
being very foolish. The domino effect comes to mind -- suppliers and
dealers will fold. Local businesses currently patronized by workers will
have a big drop in sales. Houses will be repossesed. Taxes paid will be
less.
5. Instead of punishing the automakers and putting them out of business,
why not give them a chance to continue the changes they've already
begun? And while we're at it, how about doing what's possible to return
other jobs to this country? Having so much labor done out of the country
causes losses of a lot of jobs. It also seems to have resulted in lower
quality in some cases. Dollar stores full of inexpensive imports aren't
the key to a thriving economy.
6. Wal-mart should also do some rethinking.
[I have to stop for now. I have to go out for a bit. Perhaps I'll pick
up on all this later. In the meantime, I fully expect opposing
opinions.]
--
Maria C.
No re-read done for editing purposes.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>"Inbuilt built-ins cop/pop a squat"
That has a rhythm. Do we have the beginnings of a nonsense song?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Skitt
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> Why should we taxpayers, who will be paying the bill to bail out the
>> Big Three, believe American car makers will get it right at this
>> particular moment in history when they have had many years to do so,
>> yet have failed miserably?
>
> Points:
>
> 1. I live here (Detroit area) and have relatives working in the auto
> business; my husband retired from Ford and also worked for Chryser at
> one time. I am, therefore, somewhat prejudiced in this matter. But I
> don't think I'm overly so.
OK.
> 2. There are those who believe the automakers "had it wrong" all these
> years: that the prices were too high*, that the auto workers were paid
> too much; that American cars were too big/heavy to provide good gas
> mileage. In any case, they felt that buying a foreign car was a wise
> move (or even a retribution of sorts).
>
> *However, I believe that it's hardly cost-consciousness when a
> Lexus or a Mercedes replaces a American- or Canadian-made auto.
> (Also, it's been a while since car prices were a real factor.)
I think the lack of reliability has been the major reason for deserting the
domestic products in favor of the Japanese ones. I don't own any domestic
brand cars as one of them was built in Canada, the other in Germany.
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/cars.html
While a Lexus is fine, a Mercedes is not a very good choice when searching
for reliability or trouble-free driving. I know. Also, the people bying
those two products are not looking to save money -- they used to buy
Cadillacs and Lincolns, probably.
> 3. I can see a cut in wages being reasonable; and changes to
> better-mileage cars are already being done.
It appears, the wages and benefits exacted by the unions made the required
pricing scheme of the product non-competitive.
> 4. Opinion: Those who want the American car companies to go belly-up
> are being very foolish. The domino effect comes to mind -- suppliers
> and dealers will fold. Local businesses currently patronized by
> workers will have a big drop in sales. Houses will be repossesed.
> Taxes paid will be less.
I am very conflicted on this -- I firmly believe that a poorly run company
should be allowed to fail. On the other hand, the consequences of such
failures, as there would be more than one of them, are disastrous. What to
do, what to do?
> 5. Instead of punishing the automakers and putting them out of
> business, why not give them a chance to continue the changes they've
> already begun? And while we're at it, how about doing what's possible
> to return other jobs to this country? Having so much labor done out
> of the country causes losses of a lot of jobs. It also seems to have
> resulted in lower quality in some cases. Dollar stores full of
> inexpensive imports aren't the key to a thriving economy.
I suppose, we really have no choice but to bail out at least two of the
afflicted companies (Chrysler could be allowed to go belly up, I think).
> 6. Wal-mart should also do some rethinking.
Hmm. Maybe.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Mike Lyle
>
> I've encountered "infill housing", but I forget where; "built-in" is
> more normal to me than "inbuilt"; and I've never encountered either
> "pop a squat" or "cop a squat" before this thread. *Now* what do I
> put in the subject line?
I have no advice to offer.
I rather think there's a difference between "built-in" and "inbuilt",
but COD9 doesn't support me. There's a built-in wardrobe in my room, but
I don't really think I'd call it "inbuilt". "Inbuilt" might come to my
mind as a change from "innate" for abstractions or personal qualities:
"He has an inbuilt optimism". But I am in doubt about it, and it may
well be an idiosyncrasy. OED has "in-built" from 1856, in <R. A. VAUGHAN
Mystics (1860) I. 271 A man of true self-abandonment must be un-built
from the creature, in-built with Christ.> I take that to mean something
like "absorbed into the Christ-nature", though even so I'm not quite
sure of the author's meaning.
For "built-in" in the abstract "innate" sense, OED has, from 1946,
<KOESTLER in New Writing & Daylight 82 Archetypes are..inherited,
built-in patterns of instinct-conflicts.>
--
Mike.
Garrett Wollman
>I suppose, we really have no choice but to bail out at least two of the
>afflicted companies (Chrysler could be allowed to go belly up, I think).
The trouble is that it's a bit more complicated now, because the
automakers are no longer vertically integrated to the extent they were
when River Rouge was built. So Ford, which has the strongest
financial situation of the three, doesn't actually need to be "bailed
out" -- but if one of its competitors goes under, there are shared
supplier networks and service providers that could pull Ford down with
the ship.
The old Ford (of forty years ago or more) would be perfectly happy --
and rationally so -- to see one of its competitors fail.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Mark Brader
> "Inbuilt" might come to my mind as a change from "innate" for
> abstractions or personal qualities: "He has an inbuilt optimism".
I don't think so -- I had the same thought, actually. Including the
doubt. It might be a British usage or something.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "We don't use clubs; they weren't invented here.
m...@vex.net | We use rocks." -- David Keldsen
tony cooper
wrote:
>
>4. Opinion: Those who want the American car companies to go belly-up are
>being very foolish. The domino effect comes to mind -- suppliers and
>dealers will fold. Local businesses currently patronized by workers will
>have a big drop in sales. Houses will be repossesed. Taxes paid will be
>less.
>
I'm in agreement with you, Maria. The upper management doesn't
deserve protection, but the fall-out of additional loss of jobs in
that area would affect the entire country. Those local businesses
have suppliers that are not local, and pay bills to firms that are all
across the country.
The only thing that I ask is an end to upper management bonuses and
incentives beyond a reasonable salary. Let the people who set the
strategies that are failing feel the pain.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Frank ess
John Varela wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:20:41 -0500, Frank ess wrote
> (in article <2PidnavdntA4pqXU...@giganews.com>):
>
>> Thes charming city, blessed with wonderful weather and lovely
>> physical aspects, mismanaged its finances and is facing serious
>> cuts in services, and will eventually, I fear, sell the sides of
>> its canyons for residential development.
>
> And will we in due course be reading in the news about more
> wildfires and mudslides?
Count on it.
--
Frank ess
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>
>> "Inbuilt built-ins cop/pop a squat"
>
> That has a rhythm. Do we have the beginnings of a nonsense song?
Inbuilt built-ins
Cop/pop a squat all day
I'm half wiltin'
Won'drin' what Ron will say...
To the tune of "Daisy Daisy"
Ron = Draney, our Music Man
--
Maria C.
R H Draney
Is "Daisy Daisy" in fact the official title of this song?...let's check
Lissauer's:
_Daisy Bell_ (or, _Bicycle Built for Two_), w/m Harry Dacre, 1892. Written in
the U.S. by the English composer, the song had its first success in London
performed by Kate Lawrence. Tony Pastor introduced it in the U.S. at his Music
Hall.
Now *there's* a surprise...the "preferred" title is the one used by David
Seville and the Chipmunks...I don't recall if HAL-9000 mentioned the title....r
Chuck Riggs
Here's an idea for Uncle Sam and taxpayers like myself. Since the big
three have demonstrated they can't make fuel efficient, reliable cars,
let them fail as quickly as possible. While they are shutting down,
the US government could incentivize Toyota, Honda and others to take
over the physical plants and, if they want them, the American auto
workers to go with them, soon to churn out cars that Americans want.
The impact on American unemployment could be minimal.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>
>Here's an idea for Uncle Sam and taxpayers like myself. Since the big
>three have demonstrated they can't make fuel efficient, reliable cars,
>let them fail as quickly as possible. While they are shutting down,
>the US government could incentivize Toyota, Honda and others to take
>over the physical plants and, if they want them, the American auto
>workers to go with them, soon to churn out cars that Americans want.
>The impact on American unemployment could be minimal.
Two of the big three do make cars which compete successfully with the Japanese
makes. These successful models are made and sold in Europe. Ford and Vauxhall
(GM) models are at the top of the sales league tables.
Frances Kemmish
Too many people seem to be ignoring the fact that *ALL* car sales in the
US have dropped, not just those of the big three US makers. Here are
some figures from the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
Fran
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
Indeed. The same is true in the UK.
Maria C.
> Here's an idea for Uncle Sam and taxpayers like myself. Since the big
> three have demonstrated they can't make fuel efficient, reliable cars,
That is simply not true, Chuck. What they've done for most of their time
in business is provide what the customers want. Changing times have
changed what the customers want. There are American hybrid cars now, and
gas mileage is much greater than it used to be with American cars.
> let them fail as quickly as possible. While they are shutting down,
> the US government could incentivize Toyota, Honda and others to take
> over the physical plants and, if they want them, the American auto
> workers to go with them, soon to churn out cars that Americans want.
> The impact on American unemployment could be minimal.
I don't think your plan would be as impact-free as you think. For one
thing, foreign ownership of US businesses means money leaving the
country.
--
Maria C.
John Varela
(in article <Cif_k.8634$x%.8241@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>):
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> Maria C. wrote:
>
>>> "Infill" as a term is new to me. That may be because there aren't
>>> that many houses being built (and sold) in this area these days.
>>>
>>> There are many partially-full housing subdivisions in the Detroit
>>> area. And there are plenty of empty houses. Filling in the blank
>>> spots (empty lots) is not needed in this economy. Most of us in
>>> this area are hoping for an "auto bailout"; the alternative is, at
>>> best, a gradual but extensive loss of jobs in the area.
>>>
>>> Maria, waiting for the howls.
>>
>> Why should we taxpayers, who will be paying the bill to bail out the
>> Big Three, believe American car makers will get it right at this
>> particular moment in history when they have had many years to do so,
>> yet have failed miserably?
>
> Points:
>
> 1. I live here (Detroit area) and have relatives working in the auto
> business; my husband retired from Ford and also worked for Chryser at
> one time. I am, therefore, somewhat prejudiced in this matter. But I
> don't think I'm overly so.
>
> 2. There are those who believe the automakers "had it wrong" all these
> years: that the prices were too high*, that the auto workers were paid
> too much; that American cars were too big/heavy to provide good gas
> mileage. In any case, they felt that buying a foreign car was a wise
> move (or even a retribution of sorts).
I would love to buy an American car, but they don't make a car that I
want. The last American car I bought, not counting the clapped-out
1960-something Mercury Grand Marquis I bought for a teenager to drive,
was a 1966 Plymouth.
Since then it's been 1968 MGB, 1973 Datsun 240Z, 1978 VW Rabbit
(wife's), clapped-out Toyota for the kids, 1985 Honda Civic (wife's),
1985 Honda Prelude Si, 1995 Volvo 850 Turbo, 1999 Subaru Forester
(wife's, current), and 2003 Infiniti G35 Coupe (current). All except
the Toyota and the aforementioned Mercury bought new. (Before anyone
remarks on how seldom we buy cars, let it be noted that the wife's
ten-year old Subaru --- bought in the fall of 1998 --- has only 45,000
miles on it, and that includes one round trip from Virginia to Utah
(6,000 miles right there) and several trips to North Carolina.)
Not one of those cars could have been duplicated by an equally
desirable and equally reliable American car (except maybe the Volvo).
Well, neither the MGB nor the Datsun was a paragon of reliability, but
in those days you didn't expect reliability from a sports car.
> *However, I believe that it's hardly cost-consciousness when a Lexus
> or a Mercedes replaces a American- or Canadian-made auto. (Also, it's
> been a while since car prices were a real factor.)
They've always been a factor to me.
> 3. I can see a cut in wages being reasonable; and changes to
> better-mileage cars are already being done.
Fifty years after the foreign small-car invasion started.
> 4. Opinion: Those who want the American car companies to go belly-up are
> being very foolish. The domino effect comes to mind -- suppliers and
> dealers will fold. Local businesses currently patronized by workers will
> have a big drop in sales. Houses will be repossesed. Taxes paid will be
> less.
That needn't be the outcome. Lots of companies go into Chapter 11 and
come back out again. Look at the airlines. The stockholders would be
wiped out, but that's what they get for investing in such poorly
managed companies.
In any case, that's the way capitalism is supposed to work. If you
can't compete, you die.
> 5. Instead of punishing the automakers and putting them out of business,
We're punishing them by not giving them money? Come on, Maria.
> why not give them a chance to continue the changes they've already
> begun?
Didn't we already go through this once with Chrysler? And here they
are back again.
> And while we're at it, how about doing what's possible to return
> other jobs to this country? Having so much labor done out of the country
> causes losses of a lot of jobs. It also seems to have resulted in lower
> quality in some cases. Dollar stores full of inexpensive imports aren't
> the key to a thriving economy.
>
> 6. Wal-mart should also do some rethinking.
>
> [I have to stop for now. I have to go out for a bit. Perhaps I'll pick
> up on all this later. In the meantime, I fully expect opposing
> opinions.]
You got 'em.
John Varela
(in article <ghc2d0$m82$1...@news.albasani.net>):
> I suppose, we really have no choice but to bail out at least two of the
> afflicted companies (Chrysler could be allowed to go belly up, I think).
All or none, I say. The government should not be in the position of
deciding which competitor is to live and which to die.
HVS
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:19:35 -0500, Skitt wrote
> (in article <ghc2d0$m82$1...@news.albasani.net>):
>
>> I suppose, we really have no choice but to bail out at least
>> two of the afflicted companies (Chrysler could be allowed to go
>> belly up, I think).
>
> All or none, I say. The government should not be in the
> position of deciding which competitor is to live and which to
> die.
Except -- as you rightly point out in your other post -- Chrysler's
already had their bailout, and they blew it.
On the face of it, limiting it to the other two this time round seems
fair.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Pat Durkin
"HVS" <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9B6CB968...@78.46.73.112...
> On 06 Dec 2008, John Varela wrote
>
>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:19:35 -0500, Skitt wrote
>> (in article <ghc2d0$m82$1...@news.albasani.net>):
>>
>>> I suppose, we really have no choice but to bail out at least
>>> two of the afflicted companies (Chrysler could be allowed to go
>>> belly up, I think).
>>
>> All or none, I say. The government should not be in the
>> position of deciding which competitor is to live and which to
>> die.
>
> Except -- as you rightly point out in your other post -- Chrysler's
> already had their bailout, and they blew it.
>
Oh, no. They didn't blow it. They made lotsa bucks, paid back their
loan, and now are back at the trough.
US capital: maximize per unit profits. Stockholders rule (but only if
they agree to speculate). To hel with the workers. To hel with
long-term investments. To hel with the immortality of the limited
liability corporation. And we can continue to build white- elephant
pollutiong-providers 'til hel freezes over, because we have the US
consumer trained to pay more and more. We know we can sell them any
piece of junk, if we say it has class, power, and gives them the right
to ride over anything else on the road. Oh, yes. If it makes a lot of
noise. Insurance companies just back up the makers, because they can
always increase everyone's premiums and kick back payments to the
sellers.
Pat Durkin
"R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:ghcu8...@drn.newsguy.com...
another song? I am thinking that the lyrics (chorus) go something like:
Daisy Belle, Daisy Belle, you're my (nonsense word of 5-7 syllables
ending with a resounding "TUM"*), Daisy Belle.
It may be some other words than "Daisy Belle", but I am in full STS
mode. Stuck on lyrics, stuck on similar or borrowed melody. And I
think the entire song consisted of constant repetition of 4 lines.
Shucks. Now I can't recall the OTHER melody that comes to mind.
*fiddleuspicheeUMPUMP"
Mark Brader
> To hel with the workers. To hel with long-term investments. To hel
> with the immortality of the limited liability corporation. And we
> can continue to build white- elephant pollutiong-providers 'til hel
"Hel"? Is this a bowdlerization or what?
--
Mark Brader "Remember, this is Mark we're dealing with.
Toronto Rationality and fact won't work very well."
m...@vex.net -- Jeff Scott Franzman
Skitt
> Pat Durkin:
>> To hel with the workers. To hel with long-term investments. To hel
>> with the immortality of the limited liability corporation. And we
>> can continue to build white- elephant pollutiong-providers 'til hel
>> freezes over...
>
> "Hel"? Is this a bowdlerization or what?
He doesn't want to disturb the Devi.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Pat Durkin
news:bvudnVl1GbdNdqfU...@vex.net
>> To hel with the workers. To hel with long-term investments. To hel
>> with the immortality of the limited liability corporation. And we
>> can continue to build white- elephant pollutiong-providers 'til hel
>> freezes over...
>
> "Hel"? Is this a bowdlerization or what?
Just reading a bit of Icelandic.
Leslie Danks
Hatunen
<fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>In my area, "infill" is a nasty word. Many bought nice homes near one
>or another of San Diego's wonderful "canyons" that infiltrate the
>mesas (level land at the top of a relatively steep incline). Most of
>the canyons are public land and dedicated to parkland and "open
>space", and lend character to the city. Lend wild animals to the
>residential neighborhoods, as well.
You left out about the part where not only wild animals but
wildfires come into the housing areas.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
<chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:34:17 -0500, "Maria C."
><conlo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>John Varela wrote:
>>> Maria C. wrote
>>>> R H Draney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have "infill", the term for putting houses or other
>>>>> structures
>>>>> into the empty spaces missed by earlier construction?...r
>>>>
>>>> I've never heard "infill" used. (But the term reminds me of
>>>> "landfill.")
>>>
>>> Man, this thread is drifting fast.
>>>
>>> Infill is common here. There aren't many desirable lots left inside
>>> the Washington Beltway, so many builders have been putting houses on
>>> lots that had been passed over the first time.
>>>
>>> For example, near here there is a large house, newly built on spec and
>>> not yet sold, sitting right next to Pimmit Run. Before the house was
>>> built, a retaining wall was put in at the base of a steep slope, and
>>> now the back door can't be more than ten feet from that retaining
>>> wall.
>>> And the house has to be in the flood plain of the run. I don't know
>>> how they could get a building permit.
>>>
>>> But if you want a new house close in, you take whatever lot you can
>>> get
>>> or else tear down an old house to make room for the new one. There's
>>> a
>>> lot of that going on, or was until the housing crash.
>>>
>>> There's another alternative, often seen: take a one-story house that
>>> has a sound foundation, gut it, and "pop the roof" to make it into a
>>> two-story house. Many of the older houses in the DC area, such as
>>> ours, are of solid masonry construction that can easily support a
>>> second floor.
>>
>>"Infill" as a term is new to me. That may be because there aren't that
>>many houses being built (and sold) in this area these days.
>>
>>There are many partially-full housing subdivisions in the Detroit area.
>>And there are plenty of empty houses. Filling in the blank spots (empty
>>lots) is not needed in this economy. Most of us in this area are hoping
>>for an "auto bailout"; the alternative is, at best, a gradual but
>>extensive loss of jobs in the area.
>>
>>Maria, waiting for the howls.
>
>Why should we taxpayers, who will be paying the bill to bail out the
>Big Three, believe American car makers will get it right at this
>particular moment in history when they have had many years to do so,
>yet have failed miserably?
There is a very good book by David Halberstam called "The
Reckoning" which describes that attitudes in the Japanese and
American auto industries through the history of the automobile.
The book ends about 1980, but even by then it is clear what the
problems are in the American auto industry and where it appears
tyo be inevitably heading if it doesn't change its ways; there is
no problem extrapolating to today's plight, which would bring a
resounding "told ya so!" from Halberstam were he still alive.
I worked as a produciton machinery desigh engineer for General
Motors division in the 1950s (I played a very small role in
bringing the Corvair to market, among other things) and there was
corporate hubris even then.
Hatunen
<non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>4. Opinion: Those who want the American car companies to go belly-up are
>being very foolish. The domino effect comes to mind -- suppliers and
>dealers will fold. Local businesses currently patronized by workers will
>have a big drop in sales. Houses will be repossesed. Taxes paid will be
>less.
I seriously doubt that anyone *wants* the Big Three to go
belly-up, but the fact is that Detroit refuses to learn. As far
back as the 1950s and 1960s Detroit auto executives were claiming
to make the "best cars in the world", a claim that was considered
laughable by those who bought other nations' cars. There is a
quite reasonble caution on the part of many that the Detroit
attitude will simply continue if you give them money, and their
situation will simply grow worse.
The simple fact is, which has been publicized lately in news
reports, that a Big Three automaker line employee earns about
$73/hour in wages and benefits while an American employee of a
foreign company makes about $45/hour.
There are now *two* American auto industries, the traditional Big
Three and the many non-Detroit factories of companies like Toyota
and Honda. The latter are NOT asking for handouts and they, too,
have a large labor force and a large multiplier effect on their
communities' economic lives. As long as they keep making cars
Americans want more than Detroit product, Detroit is going to
suffer.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy is NOT the same as going belly-up, but
rather a means of putting off debts while re-organizing. it might
do the Big Three some good to go into Chapter 11; it would permit
them to lower that $73/hour labor cost a lot.
>5. Instead of punishing the automakers and putting them out of business,
>why not give them a chance to continue the changes they've already
>begun?
That's what Chapter 11 is for.
>And while we're at it, how about doing what's possible to return
>other jobs to this country? Having so much labor done out of the country
>causes losses of a lot of jobs. It also seems to have resulted in lower
>quality in some cases.
And in higher quality in many other cases, including automobiles.
>Dollar stores full of inexpensive imports aren't
>the key to a thriving economy.
Now would they be if they were full of inexpensive domestic
products. But TV sets as good as the Japanese and Koreans make
would be, not to mention cars like my much-love Subaru Forester
would. (My wife buys Dodge Grand Caravans because of certain
needs; she'd really prefer a Toyota mini-van and if Toyota made
the right verison she'd snap one up.)
Of course, most Toyotas and Subarus and Hondas aren't imported.
>6. Wal-mart should also do some rethinking.
Why would they want to rethink? They're the only large vendor
doing well at the moment.
Hatunen
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>In article <ghc2d0$m82$1...@news.albasani.net>, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I suppose, we really have no choice but to bail out at least two of the
>>afflicted companies (Chrysler could be allowed to go belly up, I think).
>
>The trouble is that it's a bit more complicated now, because the
>automakers are no longer vertically integrated to the extent they were
>when River Rouge was built. So Ford, which has the strongest
>financial situation of the three, doesn't actually need to be "bailed
>out" -- but if one of its competitors goes under, there are shared
>supplier networks and service providers that could pull Ford down with
>the ship.
>
>The old Ford (of forty years ago or more) would be perfectly happy --
>and rationally so -- to see one of its competitors fail.
When I was working for General Motors in the 1950s Chrysler got a
large loan from an insurance company -- $100,000,000 in 1950's
doillars, I believe -- and the scuttlebut around the job was that
GM had secretly underwritten the loan. It was also well known
that at the time GM could have chargegd several hundred less for
a car and done quite well, but didn't lwoer prices. The reason
was that allowing Chrysler to go under or lowering Chevrolet
prices would have boosted GM's market share so much that
anti-trust would try to break it up.
This is right about the time that VW Beetles were becoming widely
seen on streets and roads.
Hatunen
That's quite true. While the American Big Three corporations are
whining at the public trough, their foreign subsidiaries, in fact
separate companies, are doing quite well. GM is even doing well
in China. Even if the Detroit Big Three went under those foreign
subsidiaries would probably coninue going strong. Who knows, they
might even open assembly plants in Tennessee...
the Omrud
> Pat Durkin:
>> To hel with the workers. To hel with long-term investments. To hel
>> with the immortality of the limited liability corporation. And we
>> can continue to build white- elephant pollutiong-providers 'til hel
>> freezes over...
>
> "Hel"? Is this a bowdlerization or what?
We are approaching the season of No-L.
--
David
Hatunen
<non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>> Here's an idea for Uncle Sam and taxpayers like myself. Since the big
>> three have demonstrated they can't make fuel efficient, reliable cars,
>
>That is simply not true, Chuck. What they've done for most of their time
>in business is provide what the customers want. Changing times have
>changed what the customers want. There are American hybrid cars now, and
>gas mileage is much greater than it used to be with American cars.
In fact, Detroit's figurative arm had to be twisted to bring most
of that about. Even now Detroit has been trying to get a federal
law passed making the federal emissions standards pre-emptive.
This would eliminate even stricter standards established by
states. It is aimed particularly at California's stringent
emissions laws. Many cars sold anywhere in the USA bear a "Meets
California standards" sticker in them because California is such
a huge market it was simpler to make all cars to California
standards than to make them different for other parts of the
country.
It's been a bit eye-opening to consider a few simple Detroit
actions. When a lot of imported cars were showing up in the USA
in the 1950s they came with focused headlamps consisting of a
bulb and reflector and a protective lens in front of them. Most
Detroit iron used sealed beam headlamps and Detroit got a federal
law passed mandating sealed beam headlamps for safety reasons.
Cars like the VW Beetle became illegal until they were
re-designed with sealed beam headlamps. Once quartz halogen lamps
became availabe Detroit saw a good thing, but had the problem
that federal law required sealed beams, which halogens weren't.
So they got it changed back; suddenly, apparently, sealed beam
headlamps weren't all that much safer.
Mike Lyle
ISTR you're a Corsanaut like me. Looking around, I get the impresh that
this fine little motor has become something like the standard "mini" in
the UK. I quiver with merriment at the thought of Americans having to
get used to them! For scale, US viewers may tune to:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bp0.blogger.com/_zbjqMnpFubQ/RgoiPjs6F2I/AAAAAAAABj4/85vrK1O_3g4/s400/corsa1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sandeepmakam.blogspot.com/2007/03/vauxhall-corsa.html&usg=__1Q4uPOSuS0_249lfNCp7AyoKfYc=&h=285&w=400&sz=22&hl=en&start=391&tbnid=CQRjRU3kPagbDM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvauxhall%2Bcorsa%26start%3D380%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
or
http://tinyurl.com/6phutc
--
Mike.
the Omrud
> ISTR you're a Corsanaut like me. Looking around, I get the impresh that
> this fine little motor has become something like the standard "mini" in
> the UK. I quiver with merriment at the thought of Americans having to
> get used to them! For scale, US viewers may tune to:
> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bp0.blogger.com/_zbjqMnpFubQ/RgoiPjs6F2I/AAAAAAAABj4/85vrK1O_3g4/s400/corsa1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sandeepmakam.blogspot.com/2007/03/vauxhall-corsa.html&usg=__1Q4uPOSuS0_249lfNCp7AyoKfYc=&h=285&w=400&sz=22&hl=en&start=391&tbnid=CQRjRU3kPagbDM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvauxhall%2Bcorsa%26start%3D380%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/6phutc
We bought Daughter one of them when she got her summer job placement a
few years ago. The car, not the sledgehammer or the muscle-woman, and
definitely not a new one - V-reg and still doing good service.
--
David
Roland Hutchinson
> Maria C. wrote:
> I suppose, we really have no choice but to bail out at least two of the
> afflicted companies (Chrysler could be allowed to go belly up, I think).
>
>> 6. Wal-mart should also do some rethinking.
>
> Hmm. Maybe.
Walmart could afford to buy the three Detroit automakers.
I'm just sayin'.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Mark Brader
> There is a very good book by David Halberstam called "The
> Reckoning" which describes that attitudes in the Japanese and
> American auto industries through the history of the automobile.
> The book ends about 1980, but even by then it is clear what the
> problems are in the American auto industry and where it appears
> tyo be inevitably heading if it doesn't change its ways; there is
> no problem extrapolating to today's plight, which would bring a
> resounding "told ya so!" from Halberstam were he still alive.
Although his fatal accident occurred while he was in a Toyota.
--
Mark Brader | "A colorful quilt reflecting the dispersed development
m...@vex.net | of the nation. A sentence fragment."
Toronto | --Eric Walker
Hatunen
wrote:
>Dave Hatunen:
>> There is a very good book by David Halberstam called "The
>> Reckoning" which describes that attitudes in the Japanese and
>> American auto industries through the history of the automobile.
>> The book ends about 1980, but even by then it is clear what the
>> problems are in the American auto industry and where it appears
>> tyo be inevitably heading if it doesn't change its ways; there is
>> no problem extrapolating to today's plight, which would bring a
>> resounding "told ya so!" from Halberstam were he still alive.
>
>Although his fatal accident occurred while he was in a Toyota.
Was it really? Well, at least the book is about Nissan and not
Toyota.
Mike Lyle
>
>> 6. Wal-mart should also do some rethinking.
>
> Why would they want to rethink? They're the only large vendor
> doing well at the moment.
Didn't I read that Wal-Mart enjoyed an indirect but substantial taxpayer
subsidy by paying its workers so little that they had to receive food
stamps? Or was that a myth, or a misunderstanding, or merely temporary?
--
Mike.
R H Draney
But we're only halfway there....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Maria C.
'Pun my soul...what to do: wince or laugh? (Both, I think.)
--
Maria C.
Frances Kemmish
I found this description of a California study, which seems to
demonstrate what you say.
http://www.dsausa.org/lowwage/walmart/2004/walmart%20study.html
Fran
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>
>>> Here's an idea for Uncle Sam and taxpayers like myself. Since the
>>> big three have demonstrated they can't make fuel efficient,
>>> reliable cars,
>>
>> That is simply not true, Chuck. What they've done for most of their
>> time in business is provide what the customers want. Changing times
>> have changed what the customers want. There are American hybrid cars
>> now, and gas mileage is much greater than it used to be with
>> American cars.
>
> In fact, Detroit's figurative arm had to be twisted to bring most
> of that about. Even now Detroit has been trying to get a federal
> law passed making the federal emissions standards pre-emptive.
> This would eliminate even stricter standards established by
> states. It is aimed particularly at California's stringent
> emissions laws. Many cars sold anywhere in the USA bear a "Meets
> California standards" sticker in them because California is such
> a huge market it was simpler to make all cars to California
> standards than to make them different for other parts of the
> country.
I have trouble accepting that California's stringent emissions laws
should be instituted nationwide. It would make more sense to me if
emissions standards applied as needed. Not all areas have traffic as
heavy as California (and the East Coast). *However*, I realize that
varying standards would be a logistical and legal nightmare. I don't
know the answer. I do think, though, that some of the things people
expect from the American auto companies are pie-in-the-sky, over-the-top
demands.
>
> It's been a bit eye-opening to consider a few simple Detroit
> actions. When a lot of imported cars were showing up in the USA
> in the 1950s they came with focused headlamps consisting of a
> bulb and reflector and a protective lens in front of them. Most
> Detroit iron used sealed beam headlamps and Detroit got a federal
> law passed mandating sealed beam headlamps for safety reasons.
I don't know whether "Detroit" got a federal law passed. I assume by
"Detroit," you mean the American auto companies and their suppliers. But
the auto companies don't pass laws, and there are safety experts whose
opinions Congress solicits. It is very possible that the sealed beams
were indeed safer than what imported autos had.
> Cars like the VW Beetle became illegal until they were
> re-designed with sealed beam headlamps. Once quartz halogen lamps
> became availabe Detroit saw a good thing, but had the problem
> that federal law required sealed beams, which halogens weren't.
> So they got it changed back; suddenly, apparently, sealed beam
> headlamps weren't all that much safer.
So, because something deemed to be better came along, "Detroit" should
have ignored it and not bothered Congress to update the laws? I think
you are being too "anti" about "Detroit." The American auto companies
are not the evil-doers you (and/or others) seem to think they are.
As an answer (sort of) to you and others who bring up the alleged
superiority of imported cars, I have this to say: I don't believe it for
a minute. I think American cars are as safe as any, and equal to or
better in all other measures when compared to non-American-made autos. I
will never buy an import -- even if I were to see one that costs a few
hunred less than a comparable US auto.
Note that I am not wishing for the failure of manufacturers in other
countries; I am simply going to support the efforts of manufacturers
right here where I live.
It's not as if I support shabby products or poor efforts, you know.
I'll close on that note.
--
Maria C.
the Omrud
Lince?
--
David
the Omrud
> Skitt wrote:
>
>> Maria C. wrote:
>
>> I suppose, we really have no choice but to bail out at least two of the
>> afflicted companies (Chrysler could be allowed to go belly up, I think).
>>
>>> 6. Wal-mart should also do some rethinking.
>> Hmm. Maybe.
>
> Walmart could afford to buy the three Detroit automakers.
>
> I'm just sayin'.
"afford" ain't the issue. I could afford to buy UK Woolworth's, but I
might find myself in difficulty on the following day.
--
David
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:19:35 -0500, Skitt wrote
>(in article <ghc2d0$m82$1...@news.albasani.net>):
>
>> I suppose, we really have no choice but to bail out at least two of the
>> afflicted companies (Chrysler could be allowed to go belly up, I think).
>
>All or none, I say. The government should not be in the position of
>deciding which competitor is to live and which to die.
I couldn't agree more, but what choice does the government have if
unemployment is not to go absolutely through the roof? I suppose the
car makers could be allowed to go bust, in the sense of Chapter 11
bankruptcy, but they must continue to make cars.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>
>"HVS" <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Xns9B6CB968...@78.46.73.112...
>> On 06 Dec 2008, John Varela wrote
>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:19:35 -0500, Skitt wrote
>>> (in article <ghc2d0$m82$1...@news.albasani.net>):
>>>
>>>> I suppose, we really have no choice but to bail out at least
>>>> two of the afflicted companies (Chrysler could be allowed to go
>>>> belly up, I think).
>>>
>>> All or none, I say. The government should not be in the
>>> position of deciding which competitor is to live and which to
>>> die.
>>
>> Except -- as you rightly point out in your other post -- Chrysler's
>> already had their bailout, and they blew it.
>>
>
>Oh, no. They didn't blow it. They made lotsa bucks, paid back their
>loan, and now are back at the trough.
>US capital: maximize per unit profits. Stockholders rule (but only if
>they agree to speculate). To hel with the workers. To hel with
>long-term investments. To hel with the immortality of the limited
>liability corporation. And we can continue to build white- elephant
>pollutiong-providers 'til hel freezes over, because we have the US
>consumer trained to pay more and more. We know we can sell them any
>piece of junk, if we say it has class, power, and gives them the right
>to ride over anything else on the road. Oh, yes. If it makes a lot of
>noise. Insurance companies just back up the makers, because they can
>always increase everyone's premiums and kick back payments to the
>sellers.
>
>> On the face of it, limiting it to the other two this time round seems
>> fair.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers, Harvey
>> CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Good grief, Pat, you're sounding even more pessimistic about Detroit
than I did, yesterday. Mr Obama and friends will have to be less so,
though, for some solution must be found, don't you agree? I wish I
knew what to suggest or I'd email him.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>the Omrud wrote:
Don't feel like the Lone Ranger, Maria. I feel the way you describe
about global warming, the real possibility of a worldwide depression,
the unnecessary battles between groups of people with different but
similar religions, the reemergence of the Russian bear, the
intractable political problems in the Middle East and the horrible
cholera and other problems in Zimbabwe. When viewed all at once, the
world's problems seem so insolvable and unbelievable, I don't know
whether to laugh or to cry.
Chuck Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:29:38 -0500, "Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>4. Opinion: Those who want the American car companies to go belly-up are
>>being very foolish. The domino effect comes to mind -- suppliers and
>>dealers will fold. Local businesses currently patronized by workers will
>>have a big drop in sales. Houses will be repossesed. Taxes paid will be
>>less.
>>
>
>I'm in agreement with you, Maria. The upper management doesn't
>deserve protection, but the fall-out of additional loss of jobs in
>that area would affect the entire country. Those local businesses
>have suppliers that are not local, and pay bills to firms that are all
>across the country.
I'm all for Mom and Apple Pie, too, but getting down to brass tacks,
what should the new administration do, if anything, to solve this
problem?
>The only thing that I ask is an end to upper management bonuses and
>incentives beyond a reasonable salary. Let the people who set the
>strategies that are failing feel the pain.
It is going to take some basic engineering work on the part of the Big
Three to solve this problem, IMO, not just some diddling with details
of what is paid to management. The problems go way beyond that, which
is obvious if you compare the solid engineering that goes into a
Toyota or a Mercedes, both of which run and never stop, with what goes
into anything Detroit has been making of late. You can't fool the
American car buyer with smoke and mirrors, Coop.
Chuck Riggs
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:13:40 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Here's an idea for Uncle Sam and taxpayers like myself. Since the big
>>three have demonstrated they can't make fuel efficient, reliable cars,
>>let them fail as quickly as possible. While they are shutting down,
>>the US government could incentivize Toyota, Honda and others to take
>>over the physical plants and, if they want them, the American auto
>>workers to go with them, soon to churn out cars that Americans want.
>>The impact on American unemployment could be minimal.
>
>Two of the big three do make cars which compete successfully with the Japanese
>makes. These successful models are made and sold in Europe. Ford and Vauxhall
>(GM) models are at the top of the sales league tables.
True enough. Have they misjudged what Americans want, for they're
nearly broke?
Another factor that can't be forgotten is global warming. No matter
what Americans want, they must be weaned off gas guzzlers. What if the
Big Three got behind electric cars in a big way? Cars that could
eventually be sold worldwide, once the power grids are set up for it,
would be a winner. Charging stations and power grids would need
improvement in some parts of the world, but not all that much would be
needed for America to make the switch, if the motivation was there.
Chuck Riggs
<fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:13:40 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Here's an idea for Uncle Sam and taxpayers like myself. Since the big
>>>three have demonstrated they can't make fuel efficient, reliable cars,
>>>let them fail as quickly as possible. While they are shutting down,
>>>the US government could incentivize Toyota, Honda and others to take
>>>over the physical plants and, if they want them, the American auto
>>>workers to go with them, soon to churn out cars that Americans want.
>>>The impact on American unemployment could be minimal.
>>
>>
>> Two of the big three do make cars which compete successfully with the Japanese
>> makes. These successful models are made and sold in Europe. Ford and Vauxhall
>> (GM) models are at the top of the sales league tables.
>>
>>
>
>Too many people seem to be ignoring the fact that *ALL* car sales in the
>US have dropped, not just those of the big three US makers. Here are
>some figures from the Wall Street Journal:
>
>http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
Very true, Fran, but when the going gets tough the tough get going.
The worldwide depression, if it comes to that, is going to weed out
many companies. The Big Three have to fight, which is to say they have
to be smart, to make sure they are not among them.
I am opposes to using our tax money to hold their hands, for where
would it stop? KMart and Google, being well run companies, are
weathering the storm and don't need their hands held. Even if they
fail, some other company will hop in there to take their place. That
is the glory of capitalism, as you know better than I do, so I needn't
preach to the choir.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>> Here's an idea for Uncle Sam and taxpayers like myself. Since the big
>> three have demonstrated they can't make fuel efficient, reliable cars,
>
>That is simply not true, Chuck. What they've done for most of their time
>in business is provide what the customers want. Changing times have
>changed what the customers want. There are American hybrid cars now, and
>gas mileage is much greater than it used to be with American cars.
>
>> let them fail as quickly as possible. While they are shutting down,
>> the US government could incentivize Toyota, Honda and others to take
>> over the physical plants and, if they want them, the American auto
>> workers to go with them, soon to churn out cars that Americans want.
>> The impact on American unemployment could be minimal.
>
>I don't think your plan would be as impact-free as you think. For one
>thing, foreign ownership of US businesses means money leaving the
>country.
Not only do American assembly workers get paid, but American repairmen
and parts clerks do, too. In addition, what is good for Japanese and
German economies is often good the American one in ways more
complicated that I can explain. Think global.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>Another factor that can't be forgotten is global warming. No matter
>what Americans want, they must be weaned off gas guzzlers. What if the
>Big Three got behind electric cars in a big way? Cars that could
>eventually be sold worldwide, once the power grids are set up for it,
>would be a winner. Charging stations and power grids would need
>improvement in some parts of the world, but not all that much would be
>needed for America to make the switch, if the motivation was there.
Switching to electric cars would certainly reduce greenhouse gas emissions -
from cars. However, the electricity has to be generated somehow. In large
parts of the world that means oil-fired power stations unless we are prepared
to accept the risks of a world-wide switch to nuclear-powered electricity
generation. (Some places might be able to use hydroelectric generation, others
tidal stream generation, but that would not be the case for most of the
world.)
Opting for nuclear power carries the risk of a proliferation of nuclear
weapons of various types.
It might well be that the overall effects of the use of nuclear weapons by
rogue states or rogue groups would be substantially less damaging to human
beings as a whole than would be the overall effects of harmful climate change.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>> Here's an idea for Uncle Sam and taxpayers like myself. Since the big
>> three have demonstrated they can't make fuel efficient, reliable cars,
>
>That is simply not true, Chuck. What they've done for most of their time
>in business is provide what the customers want. Changing times have
>changed what the customers want. There are American hybrid cars now, and
>gas mileage is much greater than it used to be with American cars.
>
>> let them fail as quickly as possible. While they are shutting down,
>> the US government could incentivize Toyota, Honda and others to take
>> over the physical plants and, if they want them, the American auto
>> workers to go with them, soon to churn out cars that Americans want.
>> The impact on American unemployment could be minimal.
>
>I don't think your plan would be as impact-free as you think. For one
>thing, foreign ownership of US businesses means money leaving the
>country.
If you build a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your
door. If Detroit's engineers can't hack it, the Big Three will need to
give them the training they need or, if that doesn't work, hire new
engineers who can make cars that can compete in quality, price and
reliability with the German and Japanese models. Powerful unions get
in the way, no doubt, so ways may have to be found to deal with them.
We'll may see how tough Mr Obama can get with the unions, perhaps the
biggest roadblock to improvement.
In the meantime, Americans know they can trust foreign companies to
provide them quality cars, as they have for many years.
This problem the Big Three is seeing has been a long time in the
making, so it is hard to feel much sympathy for Detroit, Maria, much
as I'd like to since you live in the area. "If wishes were fishes...",
however that goes and whatever it means.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
<snip>
>I would love to buy an American car, but they don't make a car that I
>want.
<snip>
I snipped fore and aft, John, because you put the problem in a
nutshell. It is just as true for many Americans, now, as it was thirty
years ago.
Chuck Riggs
<snip>
>Chapter 11 bankruptcy is NOT the same as going belly-up, but
>rather a means of putting off debts while re-organizing. it might
>do the Big Three some good to go into Chapter 11; it would permit
>them to lower that $73/hour labor cost a lot.
While I agree that Chapter 11 might give them the time they need, will
the unions allow them to lower wages or to fire high paid workers to
hire lower paid ones?
Chuck Riggs
<snip>
>There is a very good book by David Halberstam called "The
>Reckoning" which describes that attitudes in the Japanese and
>American auto industries through the history of the automobile.
>The book ends about 1980, but even by then it is clear what the
>problems are in the American auto industry and where it appears
>tyo be inevitably heading if it doesn't change its ways; there is
>no problem extrapolating to today's plight, which would bring a
>resounding "told ya so!" from Halberstam were he still alive.
What suggestion or suggestions that he had for the industry stood out
in your mind, Dave?
>I worked as a produciton machinery desigh engineer for General
>Motors division in the 1950s (I played a very small role in
>bringing the Corvair to market, among other things) and there was
>corporate hubris even then.
Was I right in thinking the auto unions may slow down, or block
altogether, needed changes, once GM finds them, if they involve
layoffs or better training?
Frances Kemmish
> In the meantime, Americans know they can trust foreign companies to
> provide them quality cars, as they have for many years.
> This problem the Big Three is seeing has been a long time in the
> making, so it is hard to feel much sympathy for Detroit, Maria, much
> as I'd like to since you live in the area. "If wishes were fishes...",
> however that goes and whatever it means.
There are two problems: the long-term one of developing new vehicles for
changing circumstances, and the short-term problem of liquidity when
no-one is buying cars. The current government answer seems to make the
worst of both worlds: take the money earmarked to help the car companies
to develop new cars, and give too little of it to the companies for the
short-term problem.
It doesn't matter what cars they are making at the moment: no-one is
buying. That includes the foreign-owned as well as the domestic-owned.
The vehicle which showed the biggest decline in sales according to the
WSJ article I posted was the Toyota Prius, the car available as a hybrid.
Scariest number I've heard lately: Volvo's truck division saw sales fall
by 95% in October.
Fran
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
The number of people and businesses for a whom a new vehicle is a necessity
must be a small proportion of potential purchasers. I suspect that most
potential purchasers can easily decide to defer purchase for a year (or more).
Maria C.
> Hatunen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Chapter 11 bankruptcy is NOT the same as going belly-up, but
>> rather a means of putting off debts while re-organizing. it might
>> do the Big Three some good to go into Chapter 11; it would permit
>> them to lower that $73/hour labor cost a lot.
>
> While I agree that Chapter 11 might give them the time they need, will
> the unions allow them to lower wages or to fire high paid workers to
> hire lower paid ones?
I've read all your "Auto Bailout" posts in this thread, and I simply
cannot see your reasoning. For example, the idea of firing highly-paid
workers to hire lower-paid ones overlooks the fact that hiring at lower
wages means hiring, for the most part, the inexperienced. There are
reasons why raises are given over the years, and while the unions are a
big factor, they are not the only one. Experience and skills are
important, and are worth higher pay.
The plight of American auto companies should not be an "us-vs-them"
issue. It's a problem to be solved in a way that satisfies needs.
There are several people (at least) in this newsgroup who make darn good
salaries in their "day jobs." Should they all be fired and replaced by
newbies when the economy slips and profit dips? What will that do to a
business? Pay cuts -- reasonable ones -- may help, though, especially if
there are expectations -- reasonable ones, again -- for future
improvement in the entire picture.
--
Maria C.
John Varela
(in article <6vknj49ukbb276mg2...@4ax.com>):
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:50:30 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> Another factor that can't be forgotten is global warming. No matter
>> what Americans want, they must be weaned off gas guzzlers. What if the
>> Big Three got behind electric cars in a big way? Cars that could
>> eventually be sold worldwide, once the power grids are set up for it,
>> would be a winner. Charging stations and power grids would need
>> improvement in some parts of the world, but not all that much would be
>> needed for America to make the switch, if the motivation was there.
>
> Switching to electric cars would certainly reduce greenhouse gas emissions -
> from cars. However, the electricity has to be generated somehow. In large
> parts of the world that means oil-fired power stations unless we are prepared
> to accept the risks of a world-wide switch to nuclear-powered electricity
> generation. (Some places might be able to use hydroelectric generation,
others
> tidal stream generation, but that would not be the case for most of the
> world.)
Some perspective: There is more CO2 produced by coal mine fires in
China alone than by all the automobiles and light trucks in the USA.
http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030215coalenviro4p4.asp
--
John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.
Garrett Wollman
Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>While I agree that Chapter 11 might give them the time they need, will
>the unions allow them to lower wages or to fire high paid workers to
>hire lower paid ones?
If you're a debtor in Chapter 11, you can simply reject your union
labor contracts and hire everyone back on whatever terms they're
willing to accept.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
John Varela
(in article <rinnj4dfantn55el9...@4ax.com>):
> Was I right in thinking the auto unions may slow down, or block
> altogether, needed changes, once GM finds them, if they involve
> layoffs or better training?
An article in today's Washington Post points out that there is also a
problem with dealers. GM, for example, has contracts with dealers to
provide them with Hummers. If GM stops manufacturing Hummers, they
will be in breach of contract with all the Hummer dealers. It's
rumored to have cost GM a billion (10^9) dollars to recompense dealers
when they abandoned the Oldsmobile marque.
John Varela
(in article <ghekf1$fe3$1...@news.albasani.net>):
> Daisy Belle, Daisy Belle, you're my (nonsense word of 5-7 syllables
> ending with a resounding "TUM"*), Daisy Belle.
Katy Bell?
Katy Bell is in the dell,
How I love her none can tell.
Hatunen
I never said that California's emission laws should be applied
nationally, although I might remind you that the atmosphere knows
not state lines nor interntaional borders, and that California
these days has far cleaner air than its historic reputation might
indicate, and that because of those stringent standards. And I
might add that some other parts of the country have worse air.
>*However*, I realize that
>varying standards would be a logistical and legal nightmare.
Not if each state is allowed to impose its own standards. I'm not
sure why inconvience to car makers should require California to
lower its standards, whcih is what you seem to be arguing, and
what Detroit wants to happen.
>I don't
>know the answer. I do think, though, that some of the things people
>expect from the American auto companies are pie-in-the-sky, over-the-top
>demands.
Most of them seem to be being met by Honda, Toyota, et al, and
right here in America at American auto plants not controlled by
Detroit.
>> It's been a bit eye-opening to consider a few simple Detroit
>> actions. When a lot of imported cars were showing up in the USA
>> in the 1950s they came with focused headlamps consisting of a
>> bulb and reflector and a protective lens in front of them. Most
>> Detroit iron used sealed beam headlamps and Detroit got a federal
>> law passed mandating sealed beam headlamps for safety reasons.
>
>I don't know whether "Detroit" got a federal law passed. I assume by
>"Detroit," you mean the American auto companies and their suppliers. But
>the auto companies don't pass laws, and there are safety experts whose
>opinions Congress solicits.
Are you that naive about the political process?
>It is very possible that the sealed beams
>were indeed safer than what imported autos had.
>
>> Cars like the VW Beetle became illegal until they were
>> re-designed with sealed beam headlamps. Once quartz halogen lamps
>> became availabe Detroit saw a good thing, but had the problem
>> that federal law required sealed beams, which halogens weren't.
>> So they got it changed back; suddenly, apparently, sealed beam
>> headlamps weren't all that much safer.
>
>So, because something deemed to be better came along, "Detroit" should
>have ignored it and not bothered Congress to update the laws?
What is your argument that insealed halogen lamps are safer tahn
unsealed non-halogen lamps?
>I think
>you are being too "anti" about "Detroit." The American auto companies
>are not the evil-doers you (and/or others) seem to think they are.
I don't think they're "evil-doers"; I think they really believe
they know what's best for teh American public.
>As an answer (sort of) to you and others who bring up the alleged
>superiority of imported cars, I have this to say: I don't believe it for
>a minute. I think American cars are as safe as any, and equal to or
>better in all other measures when compared to non-American-made autos. I
>will never buy an import -- even if I were to see one that costs a few
>hunred less than a comparable US auto.
Chacun a son gout.
>Note that I am not wishing for the failure of manufacturers in other
>countries; I am simply going to support the efforts of manufacturers
>right here where I live.
They're not in Detroit or Flint but Toyota is right here in this
country, employing Americans.
>It's not as if I support shabby products or poor efforts, you know.
>
>I'll close on that note.
Good idea.
I suggest, though, that you obtain a copy of David Halberstam's
"The Reckoning" and read it.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
<chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>If you build a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your
>door. If Detroit's engineers can't hack it, the Big Three will need to
>give them the training they need or, if that doesn't work, hire new
>engineers who can make cars that can compete in quality, price and
>reliability with the German and Japanese models. Powerful unions get
>in the way, no doubt, so ways may have to be found to deal with them.
Chapter 11 is a way to deal with them.
>We'll may see how tough Mr Obama can get with the unions, perhaps the
>biggest roadblock to improvement.
There's not really much a president can do with unions, unless,
like Reagan's air traffic controllers, they are employed by the
federal government.
>In the meantime, Americans know they can trust foreign companies to
>provide them quality cars, as they have for many years.
>This problem the Big Three is seeing has been a long time in the
>making, so it is hard to feel much sympathy for Detroit, Maria, much
>as I'd like to since you live in the area. "If wishes were fishes...",
>however that goes and whatever it means.
I grew up in the Warren-Youngtown, Ohio, area, an area Forbes
Magazine included in its ten fastest dying cities list, right up
there with Detroit-Flint, Michigan.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/04/economy-ohio-michigan-biz_cx_jz_0805dying.html
It was steel that made that area. Big booming fiery, smokey steel
mills. And General Motors, which had its infamous Lordstown
Assembly Plant there and Packard Electric Division, which made
wiring harnesses and lamp sockets, among other things, for GM
cars. Packard was spun off into supposedly independent Delphi,
which has been having its own financial problems. I worked for
Packard many years ago as a young engineer. I went back to Warren
last summer to bury my mohter, my first real trip back in several
decades. Driving around I found the huge Packard parking lot
empty. On a Thursday afternoon. And teh steel mills were not only
shut down, they were gone, apparently salvaged for their steel
frames. Decaying houses were everywhere. houses I lived in or my
friends lived in were there, but some were derelicts.
I had run into my first wife here in Tucson a few years ago and
when I mentioned I thought about going back there she said,
don't, there' nothing there anymore. She was right.
There is an up side, though. The air is a hell of a lot clearer
than when there wer steel mills, and the mahoning River is also a
lot cleaner.
The world changes. And just as the textile towns of New England
became semi-ghost towns when the mills moved to the American
South, change has come to the once-booming Great Lakes area. Here
in the West we have evidence of such changes all over in the form
of boom-and-bust ghost towns. I have to admit, though, none of
them are as big as the ghost town Youngstown seems to be
becoming, the likes of which may only be seen in the jungles of
the Yucatan or the deserts of the Middle East.
Hatunen
<chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 12:29:12 -0500, John Varela <OLDl...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>I would love to buy an American car, but they don't make a car that I
>>want.
>
><snip>
>
>I snipped fore and aft, John, because you put the problem in a
>nutshell. It is just as true for many Americans, now, as it was thirty
>years ago.
True for more Americans now than it was thirty yeas ago.
Skitt
> John Varela wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>>> I suppose, we really have no choice but to bail out at least two of
>>> the afflicted companies (Chrysler could be allowed to go belly up,
>>> I think).
>>
>> All or none, I say. The government should not be in the position of
>> deciding which competitor is to live and which to die.
>
> I couldn't agree more, but what choice does the government have if
> unemployment is not to go absolutely through the roof? I suppose the
> car makers could be allowed to go bust, in the sense of Chapter 11
> bankruptcy, but they must continue to make cars.
OK, but who is going to buy those cars? We better make some more people --
people with money.
--
Skitt (AmE)
too old to help
Hatunen
Depending on what the bankruptcy court says, the unions will have
no choice. Chapter 11 allows a firm to free itself from prior
contractual obligations on orders of the court.
Hatunen
<non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Chapter 11 bankruptcy is NOT the same as going belly-up, but
>>> rather a means of putting off debts while re-organizing. it might
>>> do the Big Three some good to go into Chapter 11; it would permit
>>> them to lower that $73/hour labor cost a lot.
>>
>> While I agree that Chapter 11 might give them the time they need, will
>> the unions allow them to lower wages or to fire high paid workers to
>> hire lower paid ones?
>
>I've read all your "Auto Bailout" posts in this thread, and I simply
>cannot see your reasoning. For example, the idea of firing highly-paid
>workers to hire lower-paid ones overlooks the fact that hiring at lower
>wages means hiring, for the most part, the inexperienced.
Nonsense. Or are you telling us the experienced autoworkers in
your area will refuse to take the jobs?
>There are
>reasons why raises are given over the years, and while the unions are a
>big factor, they are not the only one. Experience and skills are
>important, and are worth higher pay.
Which begs the question of just how much are they worth? And how
do you determine it? The simple fact is taht raises came from
seniority and not skill; that's the way the unions insisted on
and they mightily opposed any sort of merit pay.
>The plight of American auto companies should not be an "us-vs-them"
>issue. It's a problem to be solved in a way that satisfies needs.
Whose needs?
>There are several people (at least) in this newsgroup who make darn good
>salaries in their "day jobs." Should they all be fired and replaced by
>newbies when the economy slips and profit dips?
i suspect many of them will be. Remember the "dot.com bust"?
>What will that do to a
>business? Pay cuts -- reasonable ones -- may help, though, especially if
>there are expectations -- reasonable ones, again -- for future
>improvement in the entire picture.
You need to read up on the Great Depression. Which I fear we are
in danger of repeating.
Hatunen
<chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:01:31 -0700, Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>There is a very good book by David Halberstam called "The
>>Reckoning" which describes that attitudes in the Japanese and
>>American auto industries through the history of the automobile.
>>The book ends about 1980, but even by then it is clear what the
>>problems are in the American auto industry and where it appears
>>tyo be inevitably heading if it doesn't change its ways; there is
>>no problem extrapolating to today's plight, which would bring a
>>resounding "told ya so!" from Halberstam were he still alive.
>
>What suggestion or suggestions that he had for the industry stood out
>in your mind, Dave?
It was largely a matter of attitude and complacency on the part
of the American auto industry. The book is replet with examples.
>>>I worked as a produciton machinery desigh engineer for General
>>Motors division in the 1950s (I played a very small role in
>>bringing the Corvair to market, among other things) and there was
>>corporate hubris even then.
>
>Was I right in thinking the auto unions may slow down, or block
>altogether, needed changes, once GM finds them, if they involve
>layoffs or better training?
The unions are/were adamantly opposed to any changes that would
result in lower wages, increased production without raising wages
or requiring new hiring, layoffs, or any form of merit pay. They
argued strenusously for what was called in the 1950s the
"guaranteed annual wage", whereby laid off workers would get paid
most of their working wages. There are currently non-working
autoworkers who are being paid according to this principle.
Hatunen
wrote:
You need people with both mone, and a willingness to buy the
cars. Detroit has been having trouble getting large numbers of
people to buy its cars for several years now, and has made its
profits on large SUVs and pickup trucks, mostly gas hogs.
Pat Durkin
news:0001HW.C5617B9A...@News.Individual.NET
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 14:40:26 -0500, Pat Durkin wrote
> (in article <ghekf1$fe3$1...@news.albasani.net>):
>
>> Daisy Belle, Daisy Belle, you're my (nonsense word of 5-7 syllables
>> ending with a resounding "TUM"*), Daisy Belle.
>
> Katy Bell?
>
> Katy Bell is in the dell,
> How I love her none can tell.
Melody?
Thanks for the offering, John. I did find a very popular song "Katie
Belle Blue" by Townes Van Zandt (of which I have ever heard neither
before), but that seems to be a song from a dying mother to her
daughter.
And your couplet doesn't ring a bell, either. I will probably have to
chalk this up to thoughts lost to my youth. Like the old song heard on
the radio in the late '40s:
The Cowboy's Aeroplane Ride. (It's a comparison with a bucking bronc.)
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
[...]
>> I have trouble accepting that California's stringent emissions laws
>> should be instituted nationwide. It would make more sense to me if
>> emissions standards applied as needed. Not all areas have traffic as
>> heavy as California (and the East Coast).
>
> I never said that California's emission laws should be applied
> nationally,
The implication was there.
> ....although I might remind you that the atmosphere knows
> not state lines nor interntaional borders, and that California
> these days has far cleaner air than its historic reputation might
> indicate,
I'm glad to hear that. I've never been there, but I've certainly heard
about the smog.
> ....and that because of those stringent standards. And I
> might add that some other parts of the country have worse air.
Could be. And they may need different and better standards -- but not
necessarily California standards. The causes of the poor or even
less-than-perfect air quality, etc., could be entirely different.
(Couldn't they?)
>> *However*, I realize that
>> varying standards would be a logistical and legal nightmare.
>
> Not if each state is allowed to impose its own standards. I'm not
> sure why inconvience to car makers should require California to
> lower its standards, whcih is what you seem to be arguing, and
> what Detroit wants to happen.
Did I use the term "inconvience to car makers"? (I don't remember doing
so.) I think mandating California standards in every US state might well
be a bigger problem to lawmakers and those who enforce the standards
than to the auto makers. (The people who vote for or against those
lawmakers may have other ideas.) And as I just said (above) the causes
of air quality, etc., in each state could be different. Measures that
are part of California standards might not be necessary, say, in
Wyoming.
>
>> I don't know the answer.
And I still don't. I just think more thought has to go into this entire
matter.
>> ....I do think, though, that some of the things people
>> expect from the American auto companies are pie-in-the-sky,
>> over-the-top demands.
>
> Most of them seem to be being met by Honda, Toyota, et al, and
> right here in America at American auto plants not controlled by
> Detroit.
I need to check out the details of what you've said (as to what demands
are being met by Honda, etc., that are not being met by Ford, Chrysler,
and GM, for instance). I'm not a car emissions expert by any means; I
just don't like the slurs against American car makers, as if they have
no interest in making a good, safe product.
>
>>> It's been a bit eye-opening to consider a few simple Detroit
>>> actions. When a lot of imported cars were showing up in the USA
>>> in the 1950s they came with focused headlamps consisting of a
>>> bulb and reflector and a protective lens in front of them. Most
>>> Detroit iron used sealed beam headlamps and Detroit got a federal
>>> law passed mandating sealed beam headlamps for safety reasons.
>>
>> I don't know whether "Detroit" got a federal law passed. I assume by
>> "Detroit," you mean the American auto companies and their suppliers.
>> But the auto companies don't pass laws, and there are safety experts
>> whose opinions Congress solicits.
>
> Are you that naive about the political process?
Are you that jaded? Maybe we're both in the middle somewhere.
[...]
> What is your argument that insealed halogen lamps are safer tahn
> unsealed non-halogen lamps?
What is your argument that they aren't? Look, I've said I'm no expert,
but I think you and others are assuming the worst of American car
companies and their motives. And I'm not sure there's a good reason for
that.
>> I think
>> you are being too "anti" about "Detroit." The American auto companies
>> are not the evil-doers you (and/or others) seem to think they are.
>
> I don't think they're "evil-doers"; I think they really believe
> they know what's best for teh American public.
They know what the public wants, and they are always striving to produce
exactly that. (Think about it -- why would they do otherwise?) Changes
cannot be made overnight, though; and changes often cannot be made
without massive outlays of money -- while the public wants the changes
made at little or no extra charge. Not that I'm suggesting anyone take
pity on automakers -- I just suggest that reasonability come into the
matter.
>
>> As an answer (sort of) to you and others who bring up the alleged
>> superiority of imported cars, I have this to say: I don't believe it
>> for a minute. I think American cars are as safe as any, and equal to
>> or better in all other measures when compared to non-American-made
>> autos. I will never buy an import -- even if I were to see one that
>> costs a few hunred less than a comparable US auto.
>
> Chacun a son gout.
Sure.
>> Note that I am not wishing for the failure of manufacturers in other
>> countries; I am simply going to support the efforts of manufacturers
>> right here where I live.
>
> They're not in Detroit or Flint but Toyota is right here in this
> country, employing Americans.
I'm aware that there are non-American car companies in this country. I'm
of two minds about them, but I don't wish them failure.
>
>> It's not as if I support shabby products or poor efforts, you know.
>>
>> I'll close on that note.
>
> Good idea.
>
> I suggest, though, that you obtain a copy of David Halberstam's
> "The Reckoning" and read it.
I was going to suggest something, but never mind. You probably wouldn't
really like to come and tour an American auto plant, or talk to some
typical auto workers.
--
Maria C.
Hatunen
You didn't. You used the phrase, "logistical and legal
nightmare".
>I think mandating California standards in every US state might well
>be a bigger problem to lawmakers and those who enforce the standards
>than to the auto makers.
Nobody has done so. Nor has anybody suggested doing that. Where
on earth did you get the idea I had suggested that? What I said
was that Detroit was trying to get a law passed that would
prevent California from using its standards in California.
[...]
>>> I don't know whether "Detroit" got a federal law passed. I assume by
>>> "Detroit," you mean the American auto companies and their suppliers.
>>> But the auto companies don't pass laws, and there are safety experts
>>> whose opinions Congress solicits.
>>
>> Are you that naive about the political process?
>
>Are you that jaded? Maybe we're both in the middle somewhere.
Right now we've already seen the Big Three come to Congress
acting "business as usual, just give us the money" but this time
it didn't work. But it still might.
>[...]
>> What is your argument that insealed halogen lamps are safer tahn
>> unsealed non-halogen lamps?
>
>What is your argument that they aren't? Look, I've said I'm no expert,
>but I think you and others are assuming the worst of American car
>companies and their motives. And I'm not sure there's a good reason for
>that.
I am.
>>> I think
>>> you are being too "anti" about "Detroit." The American auto companies
>>> are not the evil-doers you (and/or others) seem to think they are.
>>
>> I don't think they're "evil-doers"; I think they really believe
>> they know what's best for teh American public.
>
>They know what the public wants, and they are always striving to produce
>exactly that.
For the most part Detroit produced what it wanted to produce and
convinced the American public that was what it wanted. Take a
look at some old print adverts from the 1940s and 1950s, or even
early TV commercials. By the end of the 1950s the first "foreign
invasion" happened and it was enought to convince Detroit maybe
they'd better make some small cars. Eentually, most of the cars
beign imported int the first "foreign invasion" were crap and
couldn't hold up to American driving conditions and they faded
away, save for the VW. So did Degtroit's desire to make smaller
cars.
Here's the problem. If they made a small car selling for maybe
$1200 (back then) they might make $200 on it, but if they make a
big car selling for $3000 they maybe make $500 on it. Replacing
the big cars they made with small cars just didn't make sense to
them, and they had little incentive to do so.
By the 1970s foreign cars, especially Japanese cars, had become
very good and because of the OPEC crisis Detroit sort of tried to
make smaller more fuel efficient cars, but the collapse of the
OPEC cartle's high oil prices sort of knocked the props out from
under that, in their mind. Detroit didn't look around and see the
handwriting on the wall.
>(Think about it -- why would they do otherwise?)
I contend they didn't.
>Changes
>cannot be made overnight, though; and changes often cannot be made
>without massive outlays of money -- while the public wants the changes
>made at little or no extra charge. Not that I'm suggesting anyone take
>pity on automakers -- I just suggest that reasonability come into the
>matter.
They've had almost fifty years to find a way to face the world,
or at least thirty years from the Oil Crisis. How many more years
do you want to give them?
>>> As an answer (sort of) to you and others who bring up the alleged
>>> superiority of imported cars, I have this to say: I don't believe it
>>> for a minute. I think American cars are as safe as any, and equal to
>>> or better in all other measures when compared to non-American-made
>>> autos. I will never buy an import -- even if I were to see one that
>>> costs a few hunred less than a comparable US auto.
>>
>> Chacun a son gout.
>
>Sure.
>
>>> Note that I am not wishing for the failure of manufacturers in other
>>> countries; I am simply going to support the efforts of manufacturers
>>> right here where I live.
>>
>> They're not in Detroit or Flint but Toyota is right here in this
>> country, employing Americans.
>
>I'm aware that there are non-American car companies in this country. I'm
>of two minds about them, but I don't wish them failure.
They are replacing sales of American automobiles. Are you sure
you don't, deep down, want them to fail?
>>> It's not as if I support shabby products or poor efforts, you know.
>>>
>>> I'll close on that note.
>>
>> Good idea.
>>
>> I suggest, though, that you obtain a copy of David Halberstam's
>> "The Reckoning" and read it.
>
>I was going to suggest something, but never mind. You probably wouldn't
>really like to come and tour an American auto plant, or talk to some
>typical auto workers.
Ahem. I worked for General Motors when I was a young engineer.
And I have toured an American auto factory. I have also worked
for some other manufacturers as well as the nuclear power plant
construction industry. I have a pretty good idea of what line
workers are like.
Just what are you suggesting a typical auto worker can tell me
that I don't already know?
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>
>>> Not if each state is allowed to impose its own standards. I'm not
>>> sure why inconvience to car makers should require California to
>>> lower its standards, whcih is what you seem to be arguing, and
>>> what Detroit wants to happen.
>>
>> Did I use the term "inconvience to car makers"? (I don't remember
>> doing so.)
>
> You didn't. You used the phrase, "logistical and legal
> nightmare".
And I meant a "logistical and legal nightmare." Your use of
"inconvenience" put the whole matter in a different and much less
serious light. That rather bothered me.
>> I think mandating California standards in every US state might well
>> be a bigger problem to lawmakers and those who enforce the standards
>> than to the auto makers.
>
> Nobody has done so. Nor has anybody suggested doing that. Where
> on earth did you get the idea I had suggested that? What I said
> was that Detroit was trying to get a law passed that would
> prevent California from using its standards in California.
I misunderstood what you were saying. Here's the paragraph in question:
In fact, Detroit's figurative arm had to be twisted to bring most
of that about. Even now Detroit has been trying to get a federal
law passed making the federal emissions standards pre-emptive.
This would eliminate even stricter standards established by
states. It is aimed particularly at California's stringent
emissions laws. Many cars sold anywhere in the USA bear a "Meets
California standards" sticker in them because California is such
a huge market it was simpler to make all cars to California
standards than to make them different for other parts of the
country.
I guess I just retained the last sentence when I formed my reply.
> [...]
>>> Are you that naive about the political process?
>>
>> Are you that jaded? Maybe we're both in the middle somewhere.
>
> Right now we've already seen the Big Three come to Congress
> acting "business as usual, just give us the money" but this time
> it didn't work. But it still might.
Maybe the attitude you (and others) perceive isn't quite what you think.
>> [...]
>>> What is your argument that insealed halogen lamps are safer tahn
>>> unsealed non-halogen lamps?
>>
>> What is your argument that they aren't? Look, I've said I'm no
>> expert, but I think you and others are assuming the worst of
>> American car companies and their motives. And I'm not sure there's a
>> good reason for that.
>
> I am.
I think we can both agree that we are coming from different camps, and
our opinions are going to differ. You think your opinions are better,
and I think mine are.
Duel at 5 AM?
[...]
Maria C.
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>> Hatunen wrote:
I forgot to reply to the following in the post I sent a few minutes ago:
>>> I suggest, though, that you obtain a copy of David Halberstam's
>>> "The Reckoning" and read it.
>>
>> I was going to suggest something, but never mind. You probably
>> wouldn't really like to come and tour an American auto plant, or
>> talk to some typical auto workers.
>
> Ahem. I worked for General Motors when I was a young engineer.
> And I have toured an American auto factory. I have also worked
> for some other manufacturers as well as the nuclear power plant
> construction industry. I have a pretty good idea of what line
> workers are like.
>
> Just what are you suggesting a typical auto worker can tell me
> that I don't already know?
Maybe how things are now, rather than how they were when you were
younger?
(Btw, I had forgotten that you worked in the field previously. Had I
remembered, I would probably have brought up the then/now issues before
this.)
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
> Peter Duncanson (BrE):
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>
>>> Another factor that can't be forgotten is global warming. No matter
>>> what Americans want, they must be weaned off gas guzzlers. What if
>>> the Big Three got behind electric cars in a big way? Cars that could
>>> eventually be sold worldwide, once the power grids are set up for
>>> it, would be a winner. Charging stations and power grids would need
>>> improvement in some parts of the world, but not all that much would
>>> be needed for America to make the switch, if the motivation was
>>> there.
>>
>> Switching to electric cars would certainly reduce greenhouse gas
>> emissions - from cars. However, the electricity has to be generated
>> somehow. In large parts of the world that means oil-fired power
>> stations unless we are prepared to accept the risks of a world-wide
>> switch to nuclear-powered electricity generation. (Some places might
>> be able to use hydroelectric generation, others tidal stream
>> generation, but that would not be the case for most of the world.)
>
> Some perspective: There is more CO2 produced by coal mine fires in
> China alone than by all the automobiles and light trucks in the USA.
>
> http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030215coalenviro4p4.asp
Yabbut... that may be ignored unless we find a way to make that CO2
business in China the fault of the Americans.
Let me think.... Americans buy lots of stuff from China. If we didn't,
they wouldn't need all that coal.
Simple. It's our fault.
--
Maria, tongue in cheek (though some may not think so).
Robin Bignall
<usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>Maria C. wrote:
>> the Omrud wrote:
>>> Mark Brader wrote:
>>>> Pat Durkin:
>>>>> To hel with the workers. To hel with long-term investments. To hel
>>>>> with the immortality of the limited liability corporation. And we
>>>>> can continue to build white- elephant pollutiong-providers 'til hel
>>>>> freezes over...
>>>>
>>>> "Hel"? Is this a bowdlerization or what?
>>>
>>> We are approaching the season of No-L.
>>
>> 'Pun my soul...what to do: wince or laugh? (Both, I think.)
>
>Lince?
Now you've upset Amethyst Deceiver.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Robin Bignall
wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:59:42 -0500, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:29:38 -0500, "Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>4. Opinion: Those who want the American car companies to go belly-up are
>>>being very foolish. The domino effect comes to mind -- suppliers and
>>>dealers will fold. Local businesses currently patronized by workers will
>>>have a big drop in sales. Houses will be repossesed. Taxes paid will be
>>>less.
>>>
>>
>>I'm in agreement with you, Maria. The upper management doesn't
>>deserve protection, but the fall-out of additional loss of jobs in
>>that area would affect the entire country. Those local businesses
>>have suppliers that are not local, and pay bills to firms that are all
>>across the country.
>
>I'm all for Mom and Apple Pie, too, but getting down to brass tacks,
>what should the new administration do, if anything, to solve this
>problem?
>
>>The only thing that I ask is an end to upper management bonuses and
>>incentives beyond a reasonable salary. Let the people who set the
>>strategies that are failing feel the pain.
>
>It is going to take some basic engineering work on the part of the Big
>Three to solve this problem, IMO, not just some diddling with details
>of what is paid to management. The problems go way beyond that, which
>is obvious if you compare the solid engineering that goes into a
>Toyota or a Mercedes, both of which run and never stop, with what goes
>into anything Detroit has been making of late. You can't fool the
>American car buyer with smoke and mirrors, Coop.
Don't be too sure about Mercedes and Toyota. My Mercedes has cost me
at least twice as much in maintenance as it cost to buy, and my Lexus
(Toyota, 18 months old and under warranty) wouldn't start tonight
because the battery is already conked out.
R H Draney
>
>On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 14:40:26 -0500, Pat Durkin wrote
>(in article <ghekf1$fe3$1...@news.albasani.net>):
>
>> Daisy Belle, Daisy Belle, you're my (nonsense word of 5-7 syllables
>> ending with a resounding "TUM"*), Daisy Belle.
>
>Katy Bell?
>
>Katy Bell is in the dell,
>How I love her none can tell.
But this I know, and know full well:
I do not love thee, Doctor Fell.
(Burma Shave)
....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Mike Lyle
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:29:38 -0500, "Maria C."
>>> <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> 6. Wal-mart should also do some rethinking.
>>>
>>> Why would they want to rethink? They're the only large vendor
>>> doing well at the moment.
>>
>>
>> Didn't I read that Wal-Mart enjoyed an indirect but substantial
>> taxpayer subsidy by paying its workers so little that they had to
>> receive food stamps? Or was that a myth, or a misunderstanding, or
>> merely temporary?
>
> I found this description of a California study, which seems to
> demonstrate what you say.
>
> http://www.dsausa.org/lowwage/walmart/2004/walmart%20study.html
Thanks, Fran. And that's only California: nationwide, it looks as though
the bosses of Wal-Mart are among the biggest social security scroungers
around. It links in my mind to the thread about tipping practices in US
restaurants...
--
Mike.
tony cooper
wrote:
>
>I've read all your "Auto Bailout" posts in this thread, and I simply
>cannot see your reasoning. For example, the idea of firing highly-paid
>workers to hire lower-paid ones overlooks the fact that hiring at lower
>wages means hiring, for the most part, the inexperienced. There are
>reasons why raises are given over the years, and while the unions are a
>big factor, they are not the only one. Experience and skills are
>important, and are worth higher pay.
One of the problems here is that experienced worker eventually gets to
the point where his experience no longer contributes more to the
company than it did last year. Yet, that employee wants a raise every
year.
Once the production line employee gains enough experience to do his
job function effectively, his value to the company flattens out.
There's a fallacy in thinking that experience makes a worker more
productive. There are many jobs that can be done as effectively by a
person with one year's experience as by an employee with 25 year's
experience. Those extra 24 years don't add anything of benefit to the
company, but the cost-per-unit of the product rises each year. If the
company can't retrieve that increase in cost by selling the product at
a higher price, then hard decisions have to be made.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Hatunen
<non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>> Maria C. wrote:
>>> Hatunen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not if each state is allowed to impose its own standards. I'm not
>>>> sure why inconvience to car makers should require California to
>>>> lower its standards, whcih is what you seem to be arguing, and
>>>> what Detroit wants to happen.
>>>
>>> Did I use the term "inconvience to car makers"? (I don't remember
>>> doing so.)
>>
>> You didn't. You used the phrase, "logistical and legal
>> nightmare".
>And I meant a "logistical and legal nightmare." Your use of
>"inconvenience" put the whole matter in a different and much less
>serious light. That rather bothered me.
Sometimes irony is wasted.
>>> I think mandating California standards in every US state might well
>>> be a bigger problem to lawmakers and those who enforce the standards
>>> than to the auto makers.
>>
>> Nobody has done so. Nor has anybody suggested doing that. Where
>> on earth did you get the idea I had suggested that? What I said
>> was that Detroit was trying to get a law passed that would
>> prevent California from using its standards in California.
>
>I misunderstood what you were saying. Here's the paragraph in question:
>
>In fact, Detroit's figurative arm had to be twisted to bring most
>of that about. Even now Detroit has been trying to get a federal
>law passed making the federal emissions standards pre-emptive.
>This would eliminate even stricter standards established by
>states. It is aimed particularly at California's stringent
>emissions laws. Many cars sold anywhere in the USA bear a "Meets
>California standards" sticker in them because California is such
>a huge market it was simpler to make all cars to California
>standards than to make them different for other parts of the
>country.
I don't see that "Even now Detroit has been trying to get a
federal law passed making the federal emissions standards
pre-emptive. This would eliminate even stricter standards
established bystates." is ambivalent in any way.
>I guess I just retained the last sentence when I formed my reply.
>
>> [...]
>>>> Are you that naive about the political process?
>>>
>>> Are you that jaded? Maybe we're both in the middle somewhere.
>>
>> Right now we've already seen the Big Three come to Congress
>> acting "business as usual, just give us the money" but this time
>> it didn't work. But it still might.
>
>Maybe the attitude you (and others) perceive isn't quite what you think.
A lot of others. Including Congresscritters they were testifying
before.
>>> [...]
>>>> What is your argument that insealed halogen lamps are safer tahn
>>>> unsealed non-halogen lamps?
>>>
>>> What is your argument that they aren't? Look, I've said I'm no
>>> expert, but I think you and others are assuming the worst of
>>> American car companies and their motives. And I'm not sure there's a
>>> good reason for that.
>>
>> I am.
>
>I think we can both agree that we are coming from different camps, and
>our opinions are going to differ. You think your opinions are better,
>and I think mine are.
Our opinions aren't what matters.
Hatunen
<non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>> Just what are you suggesting a typical auto worker can tell me
>> that I don't already know?
>
>Maybe how things are now, rather than how they were when you were
>younger?
In what ways do you think they're different?
>(Btw, I had forgotten that you worked in the field previously. Had I
>remembered, I would probably have brought up the then/now issues before
>this.)
Do you really think they're that different? I don't see the union
membership pressuring the union leaders to go along with
eliminating some of the more costly aspects for the companies.
Frankly, I'm inclined to think the unions and management deserve
each other.
Hatunen
wrote:
>I'm very unhappy that Detroit's auto workers are getting it in the neck.
>I don't see how we can fix their problems soon. I know they are willing
>to sacrifice.
I'll agree the moment I see autoworkers agreeing to pay and
benefit cuts to save their jobs.
>I don't think even their most austere sacrifices will help
>the majority of workers. The only thing, IMO, that is left for them is
>to forego the auto industry and strike out into new areas. It isn't
>easy, but it can be done. (I was forced many years ago to make such
>decisions more than once, and fortunately I reinvented my career and
>myself into something economically viable.)
Being an autoworker isn't really a "career", and it can be pretty
hard to retrain for another field without the funds to go without
working, Not to mention most up and coming jobs today aren't in
the rust belt, so major moves have to be made from houses no one
will buy.
I have some skills along with my degree in physics that served me
well in the past. But try to get a job as a pen and ink drafter
today, even if you have LeRoy epxperience.
>Maria, maybe you think I should be a Republican. Forget it. My political
>philosophy is what's taught in high school civics: the primary function
>of government is the welfare of its people. My view of "its people" and
>the GOP's is not the same.
Yep.