Those "Tour de France" bikes
Ablang
anyway (I only have over-the-air tv; no cable or satellite). My
viewing is limited to 1 1-hr show every weekend.
Anyways, I was wondering if anyone knew what brands of bikes are
typically used by the "best 1% of the best 1% of cyclists in the
world"? And how much do you guys think is usually spent (a range) on
these bikes?
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
Dear Ab,
A few TDF bikes . . .
http://tour-de-france.velonews.com/refine/10
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2008/probikes/
As usual, no one thinks that buying a particular brand of bicycle is
the key to winning the TDF--it's the rider and the team behind him.
The TDF riders don't spend a dime on bikes. They're pros, paid to ride
by teams, who in turn are paid by sponsors. You can buy a "replica"
next year for anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000.
It won't be identical to what the pro rode (tires, seat, bars, wheels,
pedals, and so forth are commonly swapped around), but the differences
probably don't matter.
You can buy the same baseball bats that the pros use for a lot less.
They'll improve your hitting about as much as riding Cadel Evans's
bike will improve your speed.
:-)
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Ryan Cousineau
<08862b67-04ad-42a6...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Ablang <ron...@gmail.com> wrote:
The sponsoring bike companies for each team are prominently mentioned in
those team's literature, and yes, money is a key consideration.
Virtually every major race-bike maker either is sponsoring or has
sponsored a TdF team in recent years, plus a few (Decathlon) who aren't
major players in high-end bikes.
On the other hand, there appears to be less "cheating" on frame
sponsorships these days than ever before.
Notwithstanding that some of these bikes are carrying pre-production or
prototype or special production parts that may not be available to
mortals until next year or at any price, you could do a very credible
TdF race bike replica for something in the range of $4000-10,000, with
the proviso that some of the frames (especially TT bikes) have, in the
past, been prototypes or one-offs that could be worth far more. Lively
rumors suggest that Trek may have, at one point, spent six figures
developing a unique TT frame for a certain Mr. Armstrong that never got
used in the Tour.
My $4000 may be an optimistically low estimate.
Also note that the vagaries of racing and sponsorships mean that often,
a bike company doesn't sell an exact replica of the team's race bikes
even if the team is still using off-the-shelf frames.
Because I like Cervelo and because they're a good Canadian company, I'll
try to run MSRP on one of their typical race bikes as supplied to
CSC-Saxo Bank:
Er, actually, I don't have to, because Cervelo publishes their MSRP, and
has two built-up bikes that are credibly in "Tour-ready" spec.
http://www.cervelo.com/bikes.aspx?bike=SLCSL2008#Pricing
The SLC-SL "Dura Ace Team kit" features Hed Bastogne wheels which are
probably fairly unlikely as an actual race-day choice. MSRP is C$7250,
and the CAD$ is close to parity with the USD$. Cervelo is actually quite
helpful in describing the kind of compromises and choices any "team"
bike replica must contain.
For a mere C$8400, you can get the SLC-SL SRAM LTD Edition, which seems
very high-spec indeed, notably including Zipp 404 Tubulars, a wheelset
favored by many pros, including a few who had to pay for those wheels
rather than get them from sponsorship.
Note that in many cases, if you know the right person to approach (the
mechanics as often as the riders), you can actually buy a lightly used
team bike at the end of the season. These bikes get tossed aside for
next year's models at most well-funded pro teams, and the sale of them
is a convenient side-stream of revenue for the riders and mechanics.
The collector market may be more active than I realize, but I think that
a typical domestique's bike would sell for about what you'd expect to
pay for a hard-ridden used bike.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Michael Warner
> You can buy the same baseball bats that the pros use for a lot less.
> They'll improve your hitting about as much as riding Cadel Evans's
> bike will improve your speed.
On the plus side, it probably won't turn you into a whiny, squeaky little
smartarse who won't attack or say anything nice about his team, either :-)
(As an Australian, I'm allowed to say that)
Davo
Geez, the guy hasn't even won yet and Aussies are already giving him the
"tall poppy treatment".
Pat
Hey, how do you pronounce his first name? Sometimes the broadcasters say
"Cad-el" and sometimes "Kay-del". Just wondering.
Pat in TX
Mike Jacoubowsky
I was going to suggest that Cadel's bike might have been designed not with traditional aerodynamics in mind, but instead in some way that makes the best use of the draft from the rider ahead.
More seriously though, I think Cadel is doing exactly what he needs to do, if his goal is to win the TdF. If the goal is to entertain the rest of us and provide an exciting race, that seems to be in other folks game plan. But seriously, how far up the mountain does Cadel get before he's shed his last climbing domestique? Is it measured in meters or seconds?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Mike Jacoubowsky
| sponsorships these days than ever before.
Given how few companies are actually making the various bikes, and given the almost-complete lack of IP protection in China, there's not much need for using someone else's bike for a particular circumstance (because it was more suited to the task). Any company can order an off-the-rack TT bike and have something very suitable for even a professional rider these days. For those wondering how long it will be before Trek builds OCLV bikes in China, the IP issue is probably the biggest thing holding them back. It's obviously far cheaper building overseas than domestically.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Ryan Cousineau" <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:rcousine-3E193A.23481320072008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
Dear Michael,
As an Australian, you may not quite understand our national pastime.
Buying a Louisville slugger hardly ever turns a baseball player into
someone who attacks:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2975386
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
David L. Johnson
> Geez, the guy hasn't even won yet and Aussies are already giving him the
> "tall poppy treatment".
Translation?
--
David L. Johnson
And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you killed
all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds, thousands would
rise up to take our places. Even Nazis can't kill that fast.
-- Paul Henreid (Casablanca).
Claude
"David L. Johnson" <david....@lehigh.edu> wrote in message
news:EJadnU0qOoj-3xjV...@rcn.net...
> Davo wrote:
>
>> Geez, the guy hasn't even won yet and Aussies are already giving him the
>> "tall poppy treatment".
>
> Translation?
I think it refers to the national compulsion to undermine most of their
bretheren who achieve a significant measure of success
Tom Sherman
> ...For those wondering how long it will be before Trek builds
> OCLV bikes in China, the IP issue is probably the biggest thing
> holding them back. It's obviously far cheaper building overseas
> than domestically.
Yeah, lets put some more people in the US out of work, increase the
trade deficit and finance the military build up of a country that will
likely go to war over resources.
The Chinese do not build a bike with less labor.
The Chinese do not build a bike with fewer raw materials.
The Chinese do not build a bike with less energy.
The Chinese build a bike for less since the government lets the
companies shift the cost of polluting from the polluter to the commons.
The Chinese build a bike for less since workers have no rights and no
alternative but starvation.
The winner is not the company the does the best to benefit society
overall, but the company that does the best to exploit the many to the
benefit of the few.
Thankfully, there are still a few socially responsible companies making
bicycles.
The USians that lose their jobs when manufacturing is sent to the
country with the lowest standards will certainly not be buying CFRP
bicycles, even the lower priced ones made in China.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.
Claude
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g63mbh$qib$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> The Chinese do not build a bike with less labor.
> The Chinese do not build a bike with fewer raw materials.
> The Chinese do not build a bike with less energy.
In short, the Chinese build bikes cheaper because they have a lower standard
of living, not just in terms of their incomes but also in terms of other
factors like their environment.
The damage done to the Chinese environment by Chinese manufacturing also
damages the global environment, so we need to pay more for our Chinese
manufactures to compensate the Chinese for introducing higher environmental
standards.
* * Chas
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:yR2hk.6352$cn7....@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
Are you suggesting his bike is specially equipped for wheel sucking! 8-)
Chas.
Claude
"* * Chas" <verkt...@aol.spamski.com> wrote in message
news:Vo2dnZB3K7JK9hjV...@comcast.com...
>
> I was going to suggest that Cadel's bike might have been designed not with
> traditional aerodynamics in mind, but instead in some way that makes the
> best use of the draft from the rider ahead.
>
Someone pointed out on another Forum that Cadel's bike is probably focussed
more on weight minimisation than aero optimisation compared to his team
mates, because aero is less important on climbs and because he is usually
protected from the air stream by his team mates.
Paul M. Hobson
> More seriously though, I think Cadel is doing exactly what he needs to do, if his goal is to win the TdF. If the goal is to entertain the rest of us and provide an exciting race, that seems to be in other folks game plan. But seriously, how far up the mountain does Cadel get before he's shed his last climbing domestique? Is it measured in meters or seconds?
Ok, Mike. That was hilarious. And as much as I don't like him, he does
have a pretty weak team and handles the challenge well.
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
.:change the f to ph to reply:.
Davo
It depends which bike you're talking about. I saw a photo of his time
trial bike that had an adjustable angle headstem which I know is very
heavy. Obviously aerodynamics come first on the time trial bike.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:g64145$sbh$1...@news-int2.gatech.edu...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> More seriously though, I think Cadel is doing exactly what he needs to
>> do, if his goal is to win the TdF. If the goal is to entertain the rest
>> of us and provide an exciting race, that seems to be in other folks game
>> plan. But seriously, how far up the mountain does Cadel get before he's
>> shed his last climbing domestique? Is it measured in meters or seconds?
>
> Ok, Mike. That was hilarious. And as much as I don't like him, he does
> have a pretty weak team and handles the challenge well.
Of course today, the day after I wrote that, Popo finally comes through and
rides in the lead group of 4... and, what do you know, Cadel looks a lot
more comfortable, even though his support is a couple minutes ahead. It's
got to be a better feeling that knowing your team ditched you at the start
of the climb. Now, if Cadel could just ditch that voice...
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Mike Jacoubowsky
|
| "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:g63mbh$qib$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
| >
| > The Chinese do not build a bike with less labor.
| > The Chinese do not build a bike with fewer raw materials.
| > The Chinese do not build a bike with less energy.
|
| In short, the Chinese build bikes cheaper because they have a lower standard
| of living, not just in terms of their incomes but also in terms of other
| factors like their environment.
Right, pretty much like exactly what we (and many other European countries) did during the Industrial Revolution. It's just happening later in China.
How would the US, or England, or Germany have reacted if somebody from outside their borders made demands on them to treat their citizens better and not pollute their air, land & water?
I'm not suggesting that this isn't a serious problem that needs to be addressed. I'm just saying that it's somewhat hypocritical that we got where we are on the fast track program (people and environment be damned) but that we're the first to criticize other countries for doing the same.
Tom Sherman
> "Claude" <Cla...@Claude.Invalid> wrote in message news:Pldhk.21591$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> |
> | "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> | news:g63mbh$qib$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> | >
> | > The Chinese do not build a bike with less labor.
> | > The Chinese do not build a bike with fewer raw materials.
> | > The Chinese do not build a bike with less energy.
> |
> | In short, the Chinese build bikes cheaper because they have a lower standard
> | of living, not just in terms of their incomes but also in terms of other
> | factors like their environment.
>
> Right, pretty much like exactly what we (and many other European countries) did during the Industrial Revolution. It's just happening later in China.
>
> How would the US, or England, or Germany have reacted if somebody from outside their borders made demands on them to treat their citizens better and not pollute their air, land & water?
>
has every right to protect its quality of life by leveling the playing
field for workers by imposing equalizing tariffs on imports from
countries with substandard labor and environmental conditions.
Similarly, the Chinese would have the right to do the same if
multi-national corporations starting flooding their markets with
products made by even less expensive and more exploited labor from
another country. And yes, the multi-national corporations will pull
their manufacturing from China as soon as a lower cost labor and
regulatory compliance country is available. The end result will be to
impoverish the 99% percent of the population that earns a living (or is
supported) by labor, while creating imperial wealth and power for the
remaining 1%.
> I'm not suggesting that this isn't a serious problem that needs to be addressed. I'm just saying that it's somewhat hypocritical that we got where we are on the fast track program (people and environment be damned) but that we're the first to criticize other countries for doing the same.
>
butbutbut, the US developed as an industrial nation based primarily on
internal consumption. That is not the case with China.
Claude
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
> The US should not interfere in internal Chinese affairs. However, the US
> has every right to protect its quality of life by leveling the playing
> field for workers by imposing equalizing tariffs on imports from countries
> with substandard labor and environmental conditions. Similarly, the
> Chinese would have the right to do the same if multi-national corporations
> starting flooding their markets with products made by even less expensive
> and more exploited labor from another country. And yes, the multi-national
> corporations will pull their manufacturing from China as soon as a lower
> cost labor and regulatory compliance country is available. The end result
> will be to impoverish the 99% percent of the population that earns a
> living (or is supported) by labor, while creating imperial wealth and
> power for the remaining 1%.
Imposing tariffs on cycles imported to the US should reduce production (and
hence pollution) in China. Moreover, by making US citizens poorer because
cycles would now more expensive, US citizens would have less spare money to
spend on other goods and services (and hence should create less pollution).
So maybe tariffs are the new 'silver bullet' - or maybe we should just pay
the Chinese to make cycles in more environmentally friendly factories.
Woland99
> "Claude" <Cla...@Claude.Invalid> wrote in messagenews:Pldhk.21591$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> |
> | "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> |news:g63mbh$qib$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> | >
> | > The Chinese do not build a bike with less labor.
> | > The Chinese do not build a bike with fewer raw materials.
> | > The Chinese do not build a bike with less energy.
> |
> | In short, the Chinese build bikes cheaper because they have a lower standard
> | of living, not just in terms of their incomes but also in terms of other
> | factors like their environment.
>
> Right, pretty much like exactly what we (and many other European countries) did during the Industrial Revolution. It's just happening later in China.
That is not a very good analogy - industrial production around the
time of Industrial Revolution was tightly related to ability of
a country to defend themselves and expand their economic sphere
thru military means. By contrast moder multinational-corporations
are rarely faced with question of expanding military potential of
a country in which they invest. Which I think is a grave mistake.
Chinese are not Russians or Romanians - you cannot buy them with
DVD players and cars. It is a different culture - and if they will
find themselves in a position where attacking us will be to their
advantage then attack they will.
Treating their own people like slaves without any political right
is bad enough but supporting genocide eg. in Darfur is despicable.
And our own leaders making excuses to look the other way... same
people that were full of holy rage at Russians attacking Afganistan.
> How would the US, or England, or Germany have reacted if somebody
from outside their borders made demands on them to treat their
citizens better and not pollute their air, land & water?
England and Germany are treating their people right. US is getting
there. China is not even close. I do not buy things Made in China -
since the day I moved to US 20yrs ago. I do not want to support
slavery and labor camps. You can do as you please.
> I'm not suggesting that this isn't a serious problem that needs to be addressed. I'm just saying that it's somewhat hypocritical that we got where we are on the fast track program (people and environment be damned) but that we're the first to criticize other countries for doing the same.
Technically you are right.
Except.
There is no WE in this equation. We the people have no say or gain
in anything here. "We" are not hypocritical. Our so called leaders
- the spineless puppets of corporations - are.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Claude
"Woland99" <wola...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c974abb9-4197-4657...@j7g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> I do not buy things Made in China -
> since the day I moved to US 20yrs ago. I do not want to support
> slavery and labor camps. You can do as you please.
>
Is slavery literally a widespread phenomena in China today? Is it literally
true that there are significant numbers of forced labour camps in China
today?
r15...@aol.com
> I do not buy things Made in China -
> since the day I moved to US 20yrs ago.
Impossible.
That's like the people who claim to live 'petroleum-free' lifestyles.
Tim McNamara
> "Claude" <Cla...@Claude.Invalid> wrote in message news:Pldhk.21591$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> |
> | "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> | news:g63mbh$qib$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> | >
> | > The Chinese do not build a bike with less labor.
> | > The Chinese do not build a bike with fewer raw materials.
> | > The Chinese do not build a bike with less energy.
> |
> | In short, the Chinese build bikes cheaper because they have a
> | lower standard of living, not just in terms of their incomes but
> | also in terms of other factors like their environment.
>
> Right, pretty much like exactly what we (and many other European
> countries) did during the Industrial Revolution. It's just happening
> later in China.
>
> How would the US, or England, or Germany have reacted if somebody
> from outside their borders made demands on them to treat their
> citizens better and not pollute their air, land & water?
LOL! Given that those demands are pooh-poohed as long as possible
even when they arise within those countries (consider the rise of the
neoconservatives in the Republican Party, many of whom were motivated
by anger at the Clean Air and Clean Water acts and the very existence
of the EPA... all signed into law by RMN and the EPA was even proposed
by RMN), I'd guess that wouldn't go over too well. Everybody likes
the illusion of being in control of their lives.
> I'm not suggesting that this isn't a serious problem that needs to
> be addressed. I'm just saying that it's somewhat hypocritical that
> we got where we are on the fast track program (people and
> environment be damned) but that we're the first to criticize other
> countries for doing the same.
While you have a very good point about the psychology of these things,
the practicality is that China's and India's populations are each
larger than the US and Europe put together. While we have not learned
our lessons and reformed our own behaviors- it still being more
profitable to destroy rather than protect the environment- the thought
of those nations taking the same path to prosperity is terrifying in
terms of the local and global environmental consequences.
It would be inhumane and unethical to deny any nation the possibility
of prosperity, developing a middle class, etc. But hopefully at this
point in human history we have learned enough to help identify a less
destructive and Pyrrhic path to that goal.
Jay Beattie
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
And then China imposes tariffs on American agricultural products, and
then we have angry farmers and a trade war. International trade
regulation is tough stuff, but I am confident we can solve it here. We
can propose a comprehensive trade agreement -- the "RBT Accord" or
something like that -- and send it to President Obama. It will cover
bicycles and polution and mandate sunny days and tail winds all the
time! We can have carbon trading and oxygen trading and baseball card
trading. We'll all sing Kumbaya together on a hill top. -- Jay
Beattie.
Espressopithecus
Cla...@Claude.Invalid says...
factories, though, and was appalled at the unsafe working conditions I
saw -- and that was in some of the better factories.
The workers have a choice. They can stay in the village and live a very
impoverished life, or they can work 6 days per week, 12 hours per day in
sweatshop factories far from home. They choose the latter in droves,
sending money home to support their families. But as a former safety
engineer, I can tell you that they're also choosing to lose their
hearing, risk life and limb, and suffer exposure to harmful chemicals
that increase the risk of serious or fatal industrial diseases. It's
not a choice many people in the developed world have to make.
I was able to talk to these workers through a translator (my wife) when
no officials were within earshot, and most seem very happy to have these
jobs. But they are also ignorant about many of the risks they're
taking, and about how easily and inexpensively the dangers could be
mitigated.
Java
It's Chris
ride, same as all their other equipment.
I'f Specialized is signing your paycheck you ride a Specialized bicycle.
Period.
- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"
If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net
My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner
Tom Sherman
gain in cheap imported consumer good when manufactures move operations
to countries with totalitarian control of labor.
Tom Sherman
poor quality room and board, or you stave to death".
Claude
"Jay Beattie" <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:a066dc63-5eb4-4901...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>We can have carbon trading and oxygen trading and baseball card
>trading. We'll all sing Kumbaya together on a hill top. -- Jay
>Beattie.
Very droll, Terry
Arfa
P.S. how significant a % of US exports to China are ag products anyway?
Claude
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> The above contains a false premise. USians lose more in wages than they
> gain in cheap imported consumer good when manufactures move operations to
> countries with totalitarian control of labor.
A common misunderstanding. The 'spare' money freed up by buying cheaper
imported cycles (rather than protected US-made cycles) would mainly be spent
on US services, thereby creating new jobs in the US.
Claude
"Espressopithecus (Java Man)" <ri...@letterectomyTELUS.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.22f3c3902...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>
> I was able to talk to these workers through a translator (my wife) when
> no officials were within earshot, and most seem very happy to have these
> jobs. But they are also ignorant about many of the risks they're
> taking, and about how easily and inexpensively the dangers could be
> mitigated.
I agree. Of course there will be exceptions, but the idea that Asia is full
of 'exploited' workers in 'sweatshops' is bullshit - its just another
paternalistic variation on the theme of the 'noble savage'. Anyone who
travels to Asia with their eyes open will be left in no doubt that the
population want development. They feel they are much better off in so-called
'sweatshops' than they would be if there were no development. They don't SEE
them as 'sweatshops'. The real problem for the rest of the world however is
that they're stuffing up the global environment, not just their own.
Tom Kunich
THAT'S why we have a trade deficit! I wondered about that.
Tom Sherman
decrease in real wages for the lower and middle class worker in the US
over the last 3½ decades is real. Meanwhile, the concentration of wealth
in the hands of a few thousand families continues.
"Trickle down my ass"! - Ironworker's Local 89 member
[1] Whose interest do the serve, anyway?
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> addressed. I'm just saying that it's somewhat hypocritical that we got
>> where we are on the fast track program (people and environment be damned)
>> but that we're the first to criticize other countries for doing the same.
>>
> butbutbut, the US developed as an industrial nation based primarily on
> internal consumption. That is not the case with China.
I believe you'll find we "consumed" quite a few "external" resources during
the industrial revolution. Quite a few of them were, ironically, Chinese.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g6buf0$gg2$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Mike Jacoubowsky
> Claude wrote:
>> "Woland99" <wola...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:c974abb9-4197-4657...@j7g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> I do not buy things Made in China -
>>> since the day I moved to US 20yrs ago. I do not want to support
>>> slavery and labor camps. You can do as you please.
>>>
>>
>> Is slavery literally a widespread phenomena in China today? Is it
>> literally true that there are significant numbers of forced labour camps
>> in China today?
> There is the slavery of "you work 80+ hours a week for little more than
> poor quality room and board, or you stave to death".
Again, how ironic that it is, once again, the Chinese laborer who is
suffering for the sake of an industrial revolution. Ours in the 1800s, and
now their own. Your example of "slavery" could be used to describe the
conditions faced by the great majority of Chinese brought to the US to build
the railroads and work the mines.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g6dsk2$tue$3...@registered.motzarella.org...
Claude
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
> There is the slavery of "you work 80+ hours a week for little more than
> poor quality room and board, or you stave to death".
>
While there are always exceptions (in the US as well as in China), in the
overwhelming majority of cases this proposition of yours is simply not the
case. I would contend that Chinese workers (a) feel they are better off now
than under the (no development) alternative, and (b) have an objectively
higher standard of living than European workers had during the industrial
revolution (probably much higher)
Michael Warner
> Geez, the guy hasn't even won yet and Aussies are already giving him the
> "tall poppy treatment".
He may not have won the Tour yet, but we've been hearing about him
and from him constantly since he got onto the podium last year, so we've
had plenty of time to get sick of him and the adulatory media coverage
he gets here. OTOH, it's done a lot for the profile of road racing here, and
if the majority of pro cyclists were whiny I wouldn't understand them
anyway :-)
My problem with him isn't that he's Australian and successful - most of
our world-class athletes and other celebrities are a credit to us in terms
of personality and behaviour, to the very limited extent that the rest of us
can legitimately bask in their reflected glory.
However, if you want more ammunition for the Australian "tall poppy"
theory, another local athlete I've long despised is Lleyton Hewitt,
even though he grew up a mere 10km or so from where I'm sitting.
Tom Sherman
cultural (both internal and external) reasons that is less likely to
happen in China.
Of course, the future will be interesting in a generation when China has
a huge surplus of males [1] and a collapsing ecosystem due to
overpopulation, groundwater mining, overgrazing, topsoil loss, etc.
[1] Due to selective abortion of female fetuses.
Tom Kunich
news:LRzik.2695$zv7...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> Again, how ironic that it is, once again, the Chinese laborer who is
> suffering for the sake of an industrial revolution. Ours in the 1800s, and
> now their own. Your example of "slavery" could be used to describe the
> conditions faced by the great majority of Chinese brought to the US to
> build the railroads and work the mines.
I suggest that you learn something about the Chinese laborers before
spouting off about "slavery"-like conditions. The fact is that the Chinese
were so successful that it frightened the white population and they passed a
lot of laws to limit their success to "reasonable" levels.
Chalo
>
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >
> > I'm just saying that it's somewhat hypocritical that we got
> > where we are on the fast track program (people and environment be
> > damned) but that we're the first to criticize other countries for doing
> > the same.
>
> butbutbut, the US developed as an industrial nation based primarily on
> internal consumption. That is not the case with China.
Henry Ford knew that If he wanted to sell a whole lot of Model Ts, he
and others would have to pay his workers well enough to afford one.
The Chinese seem to have developed a "better" way to move a lot of
product-- find a huge bunch of indiscriminate foreigners with a poor
grasp of mathematics and lend them the money to buy your stuff.
Chalo
Tom Kunich
news:yLKdnRS4MJ9FsBbV...@earthlink.com...
Also you have to realize that the Chinese were spreading out around
California like crazy and they were farming successfully, ranching
successfully, mining successfully etc. To the Chinese who arrived here it
was MUCH better conditions than they had been living in back in China.
So you have to be careful not to being 20th century values to 19th century
people.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> spouting off about "slavery"-like conditions. The fact is that the
>> Chinese were so successful that it frightened the white population and
>> they passed a lot of laws to limit their success to "reasonable" levels.
>
> Also you have to realize that the Chinese were spreading out around
> California like crazy and they were farming successfully, ranching
> successfully, mining successfully etc. To the Chinese who arrived here it
> was MUCH better conditions than they had been living in back in China.
>
> So you have to be careful not to being 20th century values to 19th century
> people.
Exactly right. Just as one had to be careful not to bring 19th century
values to those who thankfully managed to escape from the cesspool that was
Africa during the 1700s & 1800s. If we hadn't brought them over here, they
might never have learned to read & write & have roofs over their heads and
order in their lives.
When do we get back to discussing bicycles?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:aO2dnVHtUI47ChbV...@earthlink.com...
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > suffering for the sake of an industrial revolution. Ours in the 1800s, and
> > now their own. Your example of "slavery" could be used to describe the
> > conditions faced by the great majority of Chinese brought to the US to
> > build the railroads and work the mines.
>
> I suggest that you learn something about the Chinese laborers before
> spouting off about "slavery"-like conditions. The fact is that the Chinese
> were so successful that it frightened the white population and they passed a
> lot of laws to limit their success to "reasonable" levels.
Dear Tom,
You're a nut.
Ben
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Ben,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_exclusion
http://members.aol.com/chineseusa/00his.htm
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Espressopithecus
Cla...@Claude.Invalid says...
>
> "Espressopithecus (Java Man)" <ri...@letterectomyTELUS.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.22f3c3902...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> >
> > I was able to talk to these workers through a translator (my wife) when
> > no officials were within earshot, and most seem very happy to have these
> > jobs. But they are also ignorant about many of the risks they're
> > taking, and about how easily and inexpensively the dangers could be
> > mitigated.
>
>
> I agree. Of course there will be exceptions, but the idea that Asia is full
> of 'exploited' workers in 'sweatshops' is bullshit - its just another
> paternalistic variation on the theme of the 'noble savage'. Anyone who
> travels to Asia with their eyes open will be left in no doubt that the
> population want development. They feel they are much better off in so-called
> 'sweatshops' than they would be if there were no development. They don't SEE
> them as 'sweatshops'.
I'd bet if you asked them whether they want outsiders to "help" them in
any way that would limit their access to these "sweatshop" jobs, you'd
get a quick and emphatic NO THANKS!
> The real problem for the rest of the world however is
> that they're stuffing up the global environment, not just their own.
>
Yep, that's a real problem.
Java
A Muzi
> Again, how ironic that it is, once again, the Chinese laborer who is
> suffering for the sake of an industrial revolution. Ours in the 1800s, and
> now their own. Your example of "slavery" could be used to describe the
> conditions faced by the great majority of Chinese brought to the US to build
> the railroads and work the mines.
The Chinese and Irish did that sort of work until we Italians arrived.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
A Muzi
>>> than poor quality room and board, or you stave to death".
> Claude wrote:
>> While there are always exceptions (in the US as well as in China), in
>> the overwhelming majority of cases this proposition of yours is simply
>> not the case. I would contend that Chinese workers (a) feel they are
>> better off now than under the (no development) alternative, and (b)
>> have an objectively higher standard of living than European workers
>> had during the industrial revolution (probably much higher)
Tom Sherman wrote:
> The difference is that European society progressively modernized - for
> cultural (both internal and external) reasons that is less likely to
> happen in China.
>
> Of course, the future will be interesting in a generation when China has
> a huge surplus of males [1] and a collapsing ecosystem due to
> overpopulation, groundwater mining, overgrazing, topsoil loss, etc.
>
> [1] Due to selective abortion of female fetuses.
I believe Malthus made your point about 200 years ago. We're still waiting.
Left off his analysis is the pleasant fact that humans are both actors
and productive assets. Any analyses which view humans as static
consumers discount human potential. Greatly.
John Thompson
New *service sector* jobs, maybe. But those don't pay as much as the
manufacturing jobs they replaced. Net result is a decrease in disposable
income, despite the lower prices.
--
John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)
Tom Sherman
power to a few families that are more worthy than the proletariat.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
Tom Sherman
>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote
>>>> There is the slavery of "you work 80+ hours a week for little more
>>>> than poor quality room and board, or you stave to death".
>
>> Claude wrote:
>>> While there are always exceptions (in the US as well as in China), in
>>> the overwhelming majority of cases this proposition of yours is
>>> simply not the case. I would contend that Chinese workers (a) feel
>>> they are better off now than under the (no development) alternative,
>>> and (b) have an objectively higher standard of living than European
>>> workers had during the industrial revolution (probably much higher)
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> The difference is that European society progressively modernized - for
>> cultural (both internal and external) reasons that is less likely to
>> happen in China.
>>
>> Of course, the future will be interesting in a generation when China
>> has a huge surplus of males [1] and a collapsing ecosystem due to
>> overpopulation, groundwater mining, overgrazing, topsoil loss, etc.
>>
>> [1] Due to selective abortion of female fetuses.
>
> I believe Malthus made your point about 200 years ago. We're still waiting.
>
> Left off his analysis is the pleasant fact that humans are both actors
> and productive assets.
>
In certain circles, the proletariat are known as "worthless eaters".
> Any analyses which view humans as static
> consumers discount human potential. Greatly.
Is this the same potential that leads people to vote for the less
intelligent politician because he is more like them? The same lowest
common denominator that results in the lowest quality entertainment
being the most popular? In people buying crappy bicycle shaped objects
from Sprawl-Mart instead of supporting the overworked and underpaid LBS
proprietor?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Muzi
Some sharp guy figured out how to make money on every BSO. Often more
money than what an LBS would clear on a 4x more expensive bike! And they
sell a lot more of them too. Humans are clever. With a modicum of
motivation we'll continue to innovate. Often in unpredictable ways,
which is good.
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> ...In people buying crappy bicycle shaped objects
>> LBS proprietor?
>
>
By convincing the ignorant that they are getting a good deal, when an
entry level hybrid at the LBS would be better in every way, including
value for the money.
> Often more
> money than what an LBS would clear on a 4x more expensive bike! And they
> sell a lot more of them too. Humans are clever. With a modicum of
> motivation we'll continue to innovate. Often in unpredictable ways,
> which is good.
>
Income in the modern society has little connection on the contribution
to the betterment of the whole. Often the inverse is true.