Slightly OT : Disk wiping?

[JAD]

David,
How about the fact that most all of the automotive industry has never put
near the R&D into anything but Fossil fuels. Why? Mandated by the 'powers'
that be. When was the last time (other than just the past week) where the
main point of buying a particular car was because it gets 30 miles to the
gallon? For over 6 years since the 'OIL BOY' has been in office, that's how
long here in the states.

I worked for general motors for over 15 years. They had plenty of decent
alternatives that were shelved for no other reason other than political
pressure. We had a Delorean completely running on batteries in 1984. A
special project car. Little did we know that it was going to be used for a
negative campaign 'against' the electric car. The burning of fossil fuels
AFA transportation could have been changed over to power cells long ago. Its
small minded, uncaring, self absorbed, distracted humans that keep this ball
of shite going. Driving the equivalent of a BUS to drive their one kid to
school. Justifying their 'keeping up with the Jones' with ' I want to be
'safe'.

owning Over sized trucks for parading around town = penis envy or shriveled
genitalia, looking for a substitute.................

Here's an example of completely ignorant people and their way of
thinking. When the speed limit was 55 here in the states, truck drivers (as
we were led to believe) started a campaign to raise it back to 65. Well a
huge fight insued. But the bottom line was that the speed limit was raised
and all that campaigned and spent millions doing it, cheered their victory
against the 'political' (so they thought) adversaries. After all that, the
only winners were the oil companies. Every car at the time and 10 years
before were designed to run efficiently at 55...thus creating the biggest
gain in profits since the gas crunch of the 70's. Guess what speed they are
still being designed to run at to get the most out of a gallon? The
government never changed the standard.

the one and only reason that gas is still around is, How does one charge
somebody for something that occurs in nature for free? When they come up
with a way, then we will see alternatives.(once the government controls it)

I'm surprised at your statement. As you would like people to believe you
know everything about everything.

 

[Aldwyn Edain]

David,
How about the fact that most all of the automotive industry has never put
near the R&D into anything but Fossil fuels. Why? Mandated by the 'powers'
that be. When was the last time (other than just the past week) where the
main point of buying a particular car was because it gets 30 miles to the
gallon? For over 6 years since the 'OIL BOY' has been in office, that's how
long here in the states.

I worked for general motors for over 15 years. They had plenty of decent
alternatives that were shelved for no other reason other than political
pressure. We had a Delorean completely running on batteries in 1984. A
special project car. Little did we know that it was going to be used for a
negative campaign 'against' the electric car. The burning of fossil fuels
AFA transportation could have been changed over to power cells long ago. Its
small minded, uncaring, self absorbed, distracted humans that keep this ball
of shite going. Driving the equivalent of a BUS to drive their one kid to
school. Justifying their 'keeping up with the Jones' with ' I want to be
'safe'.

owning Over sized trucks for parading around town = penis envy or shriveled
genitalia, looking for a substitute.................

Here's an example of completely ignorant people and their way of
thinking. When the speed limit was 55 here in the states, truck drivers (as
we were led to believe) started a campaign to raise it back to 65. Well a
huge fight insued. But the bottom line was that the speed limit was raised
and all that campaigned and spent millions doing it, cheered their victory
against the 'political' (so they thought) adversaries. After all that, the
only winners were the oil companies. Every car at the time and 10 years
before were designed to run efficiently at 55...thus creating the biggest
gain in profits since the gas crunch of the 70's. Guess what speed they are
still being designed to run at to get the most out of a gallon? The
government never changed the standard.

the one and only reason that gas is still around is, How does one charge
somebody for something that occurs in nature for free? When they come up
with a way, then we will see alternatives.(once the government controls it)

I'm surprised at your statement. As you would like people to believe you
know everything about everything.

So you are saying they didn't get any recording off the erased parts
of the Nixon tapes because they were politically motivated not to?
Wrong. They did try. There's a documentary available all about it.

 

[Gary C]

{snip}

thus creating the biggest
gain in profits since the gas crunch of the 70's.

My father drove a truck, a tanker to be specific.

During the 70's, he was loading gasoline at Standard Oil,
in Whiting Indiana, onto barges,
which would then sail south down the Mississippi.

Once at the mouth of the Miss, they would sit in ocean
water, just outside New Orleans. The barges were used
for storage .... MASS storage.

Why was my father loading barges with gasoline for storage?
Because storage at *ALL* the tank farms around Chicago were
filled to capacity.

There was no "shortage" of gas. All you wanted was in storage.

 

[David Maynard]

David,
How about the fact that most all of the automotive industry has never put
near the R&D into anything but Fossil fuels. Why?

Besides not being true to the extent you suggest, it's for the same reason
I haven't put a lot a R&D into beam transporter technology. It hasn't
progressed to the point where it's fruitful for me to place many eggs in
that basket nor spend a lot of bucks attempting to design something that
has little chance of working or being practical even if I could.

"Feasibility" is a first stage item of any development project.

Mandated by the 'powers'
that be.
poppycock.

When was the last time (other than just the past week) where the
main point of buying a particular car was because it gets 30 miles to the
gallon? For over 6 years since the 'OIL BOY' has been in office, that's how
long here in the states.

I worked for general motors for over 15 years. They had plenty of decent
alternatives that were shelved for no other reason other than political
pressure. We had a Delorean completely running on batteries in 1984. A
special project car.

You can buy an electric car (or a hybrid) now days if you want. Range is
crap, it takes a long time to recharge, acceleration and top speed is poor,
the car is small and cramped, they cost a lot, life span is short,
lead/acid (or the alternatives) disposal is a bit of a problem, and you
don't accomplish much with respect to the environment because SOMEONE has
to generate the electricity you recharge the thing with, and recharge is an
inefficient process, but other than those few minor details they're terrific.

Little did we know that it was going to be used for a
negative campaign 'against' the electric car.

I can see why. Nothing like a real live demo to illustrate the point.

The burning of fossil fuels
AFA transportation could have been changed over to power cells long ago.

Would solve the traffic problem too since many people couldn't afford them.

Its
small minded, uncaring, self absorbed, distracted humans that keep this ball
of shite going. Driving the equivalent of a BUS to drive their one kid to
school. Justifying their 'keeping up with the Jones' with ' I want to be
'safe'. > owning Over sized trucks for parading around town = penis envy or shriveled
genitalia, looking for a substitute.................

These kind of arguments almost always boil down to someone deciding the
'public' is stupid and wanting to become little Caesar dictating to them.

Here's an example of completely ignorant people and their way of
thinking. When the speed limit was 55 here in the states, truck drivers (as
we were led to believe) started a campaign to raise it back to 65. Well a
huge fight insued. But the bottom line was that the speed limit was raised
and all that campaigned and spent millions doing it, cheered their victory
against the 'political' (so they thought) adversaries. After all that, the
only winners were the oil companies. Every car at the time and 10 years
before were designed to run efficiently at 55...thus creating the biggest
gain in profits since the gas crunch of the 70's. Guess what speed they are
still being designed to run at to get the most out of a gallon? The
government never changed the standard.

Trucks were *not* designed for maximum efficiency at 55 before the double
nickel and there's more to 'cost' than just the price of gas. Slower speed
costs time which daisy chains into other problems; not to mention the
development, purchase, and maintenance costs necessary to comply with
regulations. (which doesn't mean I'm against all regulation, just against
the myth perpetually espoused by advocates that they're 'free')

That the government may not have changed 'the standard' when they changed
the federally mandated double nickel is likely little more than typical
government stupidity although if I were a conspiracy advocate I might say
it was a sinister plot concocted by environmentalists to revive it.

Interesting conspiracy theory you've got there, though: that the trucking
industry lobbied for the purpose of increasing their own costs.

the one and only reason that gas is still around is, How does one charge
somebody for something that occurs in nature for free?

And just exactly what 'that occurs in nature for free' are you planning to
power a vehicle with? Lightning bolts of the gods?

Btw, fossil fuel 'occurs in nature for free' too. So does iron, aluminum,
silicon (so we get computers into it), and a host of other things. It's all
the work needed to 'use' that 'free stuff' that costs.

When they come up
with a way, then we will see alternatives.

Precisely. When someone comes up with a new invention we'll see it, if it's
practical.

(once the government controls it)

At least here I share your mistrust of 'government controls'.

I'm surprised at your statement. As you would like people to believe you
know everything about everything.

One's apparent level of knowledge increases dramatically once conspiracy
theories are abandoned; even if for no other reason than it's suddenly
possible to hear more than one side of an issue.

 

[David Maynard]

{snip}




My father drove a truck, a tanker to be specific.

During the 70's, he was loading gasoline at Standard Oil,
in Whiting Indiana, onto barges,
which would then sail south down the Mississippi.

Once at the mouth of the Miss, they would sit in ocean
water, just outside New Orleans. The barges were used
for storage .... MASS storage.

Why was my father loading barges with gasoline for storage?
Because storage at *ALL* the tank farms around Chicago were
filled to capacity.

There was no "shortage" of gas. All you wanted was in storage.

The situation you describe was typical of government regulation at the time.

When the 70's 'energy crisis' hit the government decided it would 'fix' the
problem by dictating where supplies went but they ignored virtual all real
world factors. I.E They used a child like mentality of "gas/oil needed here
send some" with the result that you'd often end up with resources sent to
places that had no capacity to process/handle them, leaving only the choice
of tying up other resources storing the stuff, such as tankers which could
be put to better use *transporting* materials to places that *could*
process it rather than sitting at a dock holding fuel there was no place to
put.

The reverse side of that would be a government agency 'request' to send
fuel/oil somewhere when there was no physical way to do so. I know of at
least one instance where that happened and when the impossibility of it was
explained to the government rep he told them that the government would,
sooner or later, 'get them' for their "lack of cooperation."

Of course, seeing loaded tankers sitting at docks fueled (pardon the pun)
'oil industry' conspiracy theories even though it's rather intuitive that
if one wanted to artificially create a shortage it makes a heck of a lot
more sense to not produce an excess in the first place, much less store it
in a tanker.

 

[JAD]

Besides not being true to the extent you suggest, it's for the same reason
I haven't put a lot a R&D into beam transporter technology. It hasn't
progressed to the point where it's fruitful for me to place many eggs in
that basket nor spend a lot of bucks attempting to design something that
has little chance of working or being practical even if I could.

beam transporter? earth to dave.... Actually its a mis statement... should
have said that they did not have to put much money into R&D for fuel
burning, as the only change was fuel injection. They have been reaping the
profits forever on the technology.

"Feasibility" is a first stage item of any development project.

And who decides its feasibility? The average Joe? Nope. In a boardroom
where special interest rules the roost.

poppycock.

your in the dark.... Just because conspiracies bother you, doesn't mean you
dismiss them to make yourself feel secure.

You can buy an electric car (or a hybrid) now days if you want. Range is
crap, it takes a long time to recharge, acceleration and top speed is

poor,

Again your in the dark. Speed? what 80mph is your defintion of 'proper'
speed.

recharge? HYBRED! no charging.

acceleration...there was a time and place for 0 to 60 in 4 seconds,, it is
no longer a good selling point. ALthough the STUPID public buys based on
this type of advertising.

the car is small and cramped, they cost a lot, life span is short,
lead/acid (or the alternatives) disposal is a bit of a problem, and you
don't accomplish much with respect to the environment because SOMEONE has
to generate the electricity you recharge the thing with, and recharge is an
inefficient process, but other than those few minor details they're terrific.

you need to catch up. these are OLD perspectives
It worked perfectly. And BTW we came about this from the tech that we were
using to create parade float drive trains. Actually they fudged the results
and only pointed out the downfalls. Much like you. Cramped? o poor baby, let
me guess a cadillac, duelly owner,, tell me what are you going to do if your
around to witness the failing supplies. Special pumps for people who like to
waste..10.00 bucks a gallon for you and your leg room.

We are removing the earths ballast far faster than it was produced. We are
WAY past peak production, cause there is not anywhere near amounts of oil
predicted in untapped deposites. The power source 'oil' is responcible for
many of the worlds anks.



I can see why. Nothing like a real live demo to illustrate the point.

Right dave, If the same amount of scrutiny was given to a gas burning
vehicle it wouldn't sell either.

\>

Would solve the traffic problem too since many people couldn't afford

them.

price is mandated by the whomever is in control. Any technology that reaches
mass production would(should) drop in cost respectively. If the company is
honest, and there is no interference from outside influences. The first cars
were not afforded by everyone either. Even though that was Fords driving
slogan. The 'Caesar at the time fixed that.

These kind of arguments almost always boil down to someone deciding the

'public' is stupid and wanting to become little Caesar dictating to them.

And thats not what happens today? Little ceasar has been here for 50+
years. And the STUPID public actually puts him in office for a second term
on numerous occasions. voting fraud is another conspiracy right?



Trucks were *not* designed for maximum efficiency at 55 before the double

nickel and there's more to 'cost' than just the price of gas. Slower speed
costs time which daisy chains into other problems; not to mention the
development, purchase, and maintenance costs necessary to comply with
regulations. (which doesn't mean I'm against all regulation, just against
the myth perpetually espoused by advocates that they're 'free')

Those 'regulations' are the biggest con of all. AFA ecological regulations,
Changing the 'color' of emissions is a farce.

TRUCKS WERE NOT THE ISSUE. A large percentage of trucking is run on diesel
and the gearing is completely different from an auto. (weight to fuel
consumption) Even though they took and raped them too. They used them as
the catalyst. Political and corporate lobbyist hiding behind trucking
unions. slower speeds?....makes little difference when you approach the
city and you couldn't hit 35 let alone 55. Price fixing is evident, tell me
why California has the most expensive fuel when its refined right here and
then SHIPPED to other places. other states prices are 40 to 60+ cents
cheaper.

That the government may not have changed 'the standard' when they changed
the federally mandated double nickel is likely little more than typical
government stupidity although if I were a conspiracy advocate I might say
it was a sinister plot concocted by environmentalists to revive it.

Interesting conspiracy theory you've got there, though: that the trucking
industry lobbied for the purpose of increasing their own costs.

again don't try to 'cheapen' a conversation using 'conspiercy therory' to
dismiss it. Its far from a theory.

And just exactly what 'that occurs in nature for free' are you planning to
power a vehicle with? Lightning bolts of the gods?

get real...thats exactly the stupid publics opinion and small thinking

sunlight - hydrogen - water -compressed air - gravity changing
tech(magnetics) are they all practical?...we will never know for sure
because of small minded people who need thier leg room.

Btw, fossil fuel 'occurs in nature for free' too. So does iron, aluminum,
silicon (so we get computers into it), and a host of other things. It's all
the work needed to 'use' that 'free stuff' that costs.

i won't even comment on that, its completely twisted. SUN LIGHT IS FREE. Get
somewhere near this comparison.

Precisely. When someone comes up with a new invention we'll see it, if it's
practical.

There are plenty sitting shelved. Not from impracticallity. Some shelved
because some people couldn't be caught dead in one of those...pre madonnas.

At least here I share your mistrust of 'government controls'.


One's apparent level of knowledge increases dramatically once conspiracy
theories are abandoned; even if for no other reason than it's suddenly
possible to hear more than one side of an issue.

you turned this into a CT. its not, and its in our face....narrow minded
people dismiss all things as CT.

 

[David Maynard]

beam transporter? earth to dave....

Can't fool me. It's obvious you aren't on earth

The example was *meant* to be an 'extreme' in order to illustrate the point
of 'practicality' because I was sure you couldn't argue about it's
practicality.

Actually its a mis statement... should
have said that they did not have to put much money into R&D for fuel
burning, as the only change was fuel injection.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here with "the only change was
fuel injection" as 'fossil fuel' engines have been "fuel burning" from the
first to the present whether by carb, mechanical injection, CIS, natural
gas, shoving coal into the firebox, or whatever 'fuel feed' approach is used.

They have been reaping the
profits forever on the technology.

The object is to make a profit so it isn't surprising that some manage it.

There's also a lot of others who didn't. Packard, Lasalle, Studebaker,
Pierce-Arrow, Cord-Auburn-Duesenburg, and Desoto come to mind off hand. And
that runs the gamut from po-boy to rich boy contraptions.

If you think the 'R&D' was all completed in 1905, or 1945, or 1965, or last
year, then you're living in a dream world.

And who decides its feasibility?

The ones being asked to fund it.

The average Joe?

If 'Joe' has the money then he gets to decide what to do with it.

Nope. In a boardroom
where special interest rules the roost.

The 'special interest' is whether the damn thing will work and return a
profit, and if you present to the board a practical electric car that the
public will buy they'll gleefully build them because they don't GIVE a
tinker's dam if it burns gas, perfume, dog do-do or sucks light out of the
air. They just want to profitably build and sell the stupid things.

A completely new technology would have to break over the "we know how to
make these" barrier though.

your in the dark.... Just because conspiracies bother you, doesn't mean you
dismiss them to make yourself feel secure.

What 'bothers me' are people who knee jerk assume conspiracies for
everything under the sun and phrases like "the powers that be" are simply
modern day variants of 'fates and the gods' to explain things away.

poor,

Again your in the dark. Speed? what 80mph is your defintion of 'proper'
speed.

I didn't say a 'proper' anything. I combined the twin aspects of
acceleration and speed saying the two, together, is poor, by comparison.
And if you doubt it I'll meet you on the race track.

recharge? HYBRED! no charging.

The hybrid was in () and I didn't concentrate on it because I figured you'd
rant about it burning "fossil fuel," and if the point is to not use fossil
fuels then it don't fit the bill.

acceleration...there was a time and place for 0 to 60 in 4 seconds,, it is
no longer a good selling point. ALthough the STUPID public buys based on
this type of advertising.

You can buy based on 0-60 dawn to dusk if you want but leave my buying
decisions to me.

terrific.

you need to catch up. these are OLD perspectives

Then people will be buying them in droves without anyone dictating to them.

It worked perfectly.

Lots of impractical things 'work perfectly'.

And BTW we came about this from the tech that we were
using to create parade float drive trains. Actually they fudged the results
and only pointed out the downfalls. Much like you. Cramped? o poor baby, let
me guess a cadillac, duelly owner,,

You're a poor guesser. In fact, I happen to like smaller cars, depending on
the frame of reference, but that's my preference and I don't go around
dictating to people what they should buy.

My mother, on the other hand, happens to like larger cars and I can see
why. They're a lot more comfortable and at 80 she deserves it. And no one
has the right to tell her she has to ride around with her knees shoved into
her chest in a bucket of bolts midget that turns every pebble on the street
into a bone splitting jolt. Or that she has to hand crank her windows,
drive in 95 degree heat without air conditioning, or do without any of the
other comforts just because *they* don't care for them themselves.

tell me what are you going to do if your
around to witness the failing supplies.
Adapt

Special pumps for people who like to
waste..10.00 bucks a gallon for you and your leg room.

We are removing the earths ballast far faster than it was produced.

Removing 'ballast'? To where?

You're worried the planet is going to 'sink' without oil buoyancy?

We are
WAY past peak production, cause there is not anywhere near amounts of oil
predicted in untapped deposites.

That's simply a myth. World production in 1982 was 58 million barrels per
day, in 1992 it was 66.7 million, and in 2002 it was 77 million.

The problem is world consumption is going up faster in the developing
countries who happen to also be a lot less fuel efficient.

The power source 'oil' is responcible for
many of the worlds anks.

No, people are. Always have been and always will be.

And if all oil vanished over night and humans resorted to horses for
transportation there's be a 'horse shortage' and a 'horse crisis' and
'horse wars'.

Watch a western some time.

I can see why. Nothing like a real live demo to illustrate the point.

Right dave, If the same amount of scrutiny was given to a gas burning
vehicle it wouldn't sell either.

Frankly, that's so off the wall I can't think of anything but twilight zone
music for it.

There's probably nothing on the planet that's received more critical
'scrutiny' than automobiles.

them.

price is mandated by the whomever is in control.

No, it's set by supply and demand.

Any technology that reaches
mass production would(should) drop in cost respectively.

Yes, it will. But not arbitrarily and it's limited by the technology. You
can't make Saturn IV rockets for 10 bucks each no matter HOW many you 'mass
produce'.

If the company is
honest, and there is no interference from outside influences. The first cars
were not afforded by everyone either. Even though that was Fords driving
slogan. The 'Caesar at the time fixed that.

I have no idea what "The 'Caesar at the time fixed that" is supposed to mean.

Ford applied mass production techniques to automobiles, a rather new idea
at the time for something that complex. It made him rich and, later, damn
near destroyed the company as well.

envy or shriveled

These kind of arguments almost always boil down to someone deciding the


And thats not what happens today? Little ceasar has been here for 50+
years. And the STUPID public actually puts him in office for a second term
on numerous occasions. voting fraud is another conspiracy right?

You're just making generic rants.

Trucks were *not* designed for maximum efficiency at 55 before the double


Those 'regulations' are the biggest con of all. AFA ecological regulations,
Changing the 'color' of emissions is a farce.

'Colorful' rants don't provide anything of substance to discuss.

TRUCKS WERE NOT THE ISSUE.

They were to the 'trucking' regulations and the 'trucking' industry and if
they weren't the issue then why did you frame it in those terms?

A large percentage of trucking is run on diesel
and the gearing is completely different from an auto. (weight to fuel
consumption)

We know that.

Even though they took and raped them too. They used them as
the catalyst. Political and corporate lobbyist hiding behind trucking
unions. slower speeds?....makes little difference when you approach the
city and you couldn't hit 35 let alone 55.

Then no need for a lower speed limit.

Obviously the 'need' is where there *is* more than a 'little difference'
and you could go over 55, and it's silly to bring up slow speed areas to
talk about a 55 MPH speed limit.

Price fixing is evident, tell me
why California has the most expensive fuel when its refined right here and
then SHIPPED to other places. other states prices are 40 to 60+ cents
cheaper.

Because California regulates and taxes the hell out of it, then requires
specially formulated gas on top of it, and has blocked most new
construction or exploration for the last 20 years or so.

In 2000 50% of California's oil consumption was produced in state with the
rest imported and the ratio is getting worse. Now, Alaska production was
the larger percentage of California's oil imports but that is dropping too.

again don't try to 'cheapen' a conversation using 'conspiercy therory' to
dismiss it. Its far from a theory.

Well, yes, it *is* 'far from a theory' but on the other side of what you think.

get real...thats exactly the stupid publics opinion and small thinking

No, it was a question because you didn't say anything other than some pie
in the sky nonsense about 'free'.

sunlight

It's 'free' if you stand in it for a tan but it isn't 'free' to get it into
a vehicle power plant.

- hydrogen - water

Hydrogen doesn't come out of the water of it's own accord. It takes a
*hell* of a lot of energy and it's a net loss. The 'advantage' is if you
have energy to burn, pun intended, it can be bottled for use in a vehicle,
but it doesn't 'solve' a blessed thing as far as a *source* of energy is
concerned.

Currently the best, read renewable and a net positive power output, source
of hydrogen is plant farms, but then people also like to eat.

-compressed air

Doesn't compress itself.

- gravity changing

And you say my transporter example was far out? Or do you mean to just
drive downhill all the time?

tech(magnetics)

Lord only knows what you mean by "tech(magnetics)."

are they all practical?...we will never know for sure
because of small minded people who need thier leg room.

That's just utter nonsense. People buy what's available. You invent a 'tech
magnetics' car, whatever the hell that is, and if it works for a reasonable
price, with reasonable features and performance, then they'll buy it too.

But don't come around here with a go cart telling folks it's just as good
as a Ford Taurus, or whatever their poison of choice is, and then whine
about the 'stupid' public when they respond with "uh, no it ain't."

i won't even comment on that, its completely twisted. SUN LIGHT IS FREE. Get
somewhere near this comparison.

As I stated above, it isn't 'free' to get the stuff into an engine and
*use* it for something.

Btw, if you're thinking cars with solar panels on the roof will work then
you haven't checked power intensities, and I don't mean vs current solar
panel efficiencies. I mean assume 100% conversion, which is impossible, and
the light source itself. There ain't enough per unit area.

It works, sorta, for gossamer powered gliders, with no payload, because you
can have football field sized wing spans but that's a heck of a traffic
problem on the ground.

There are plenty sitting shelved. Not from impracticallity. Some shelved
because some people couldn't be caught dead in one of those...pre madonnas.

Yeah, sure. Right next to the "100 MPG carburetor"

I'm always amazed how people just magically 'know' these mythical things
exist somewhere.

you turned this into a CT. its not, and its in our face....narrow minded
people dismiss all things as CT.

Man, it wasn't *I* who turned it into a CT. You began with 'the powers that
be' and keep adding them at every turn.

 

[Dorothy Bradbury]

Lobbyists tend to act like a dampener, not direction blocker.
Economic reality is distinctly more power than lobbyists.

o Say an economy has 150B$ sales from present car technology.
o You want to develop Whizzo Inc Propulsion.

You face 4 counters on any forcefield analysis:
o Costly primary innovation multiple-solution R&D portfolio
---- target costing may eliminate some solutions
---- innovation is "able to do it"
---- exploitation is "able to make it, fit it, maintain it" economics
o Costly R&D to make *infancy tech* substitute for *mature-tech*
---- combustion engines took 20+ iterations @ 100yrs to get mature
---- alternatives can't easily leapfrog iterations to substitute mature
o Costly opportunity cost in terms of payback
---- law of big numbers is a major hurdle to big-corporate
-------- a 0.5B$ revenue is an immaterial contribution to 150B$ sales
-------- a 0.5B$ revenue growing fast takes time to get large vs 150B$ sales
---- a competing technology also cannabalises your existing sales base
---- that existing sales base has a lower R&D base re inheritance etc
o Costly structural cost in terms of suppliers
---- car maker = CAD car + make/paint tin body + assemble parts
-------- distribution of CAD "labour" is becoming CAD body, Spec Parts
---- car supplier = make that vast array of parts
-------- distribution of CAD "labour" is now to Spec from car maker
-------- maker ITB function X at target cost Y, supplier figure how
---- Whizzo Inc Propulsion disintermediates a vast # of suppliers
-------- Japan is the one fearful here - of China making electric cars

Energy & Distribution are just another car supplier.
They are however as important in the above analysis.

The problem of the West is Distribution Of Labour.
o Financial Capital & Production can flight to the East
---- Production cost re non-floating China/India Forex to West
---- WBS task redefinable to the end of an RJ45 plug re Internet
o Human Capital hasn't moved to the East, yet fewer West people required
---- Western skills compete against Eastern Pay @ Western Cost Of Living
---- Western Taxation revenue of Corp & People fallen dramatically
o Gov't Spend & Pension Benefit Obligation remains in the West
---- Fewer high skilled required, yet more required for Taxation
-------- hence wage deflation near enough in USA
-------- hence 3.8M professions earning ~£115/wk in UK, 11M+ by 2020
---- Declining population overall & declining wage earning re old age
-------- exploding Pension & Social Security liability

West thus a Cost & Taxation story, East a Growth story.

Eventually:
o Skills of the East will knock on the door of the highest in the West
---- any who thinks "we think, they do" lasts forever is a fool
---- all who think & make in the chain gravitate around that centre
---- Reflexivity ensures all migrate once critical mass achieved
o Thereupon the West will demand for floating exchange rates
---- so creating more realistic salary cost in India/Asia/China
o Thereupon the East will resist as Reflexivity in its own policy
---- East has financed West by their savings migrating back
---- in so doing allowing low LT rates to finance housing's run
---- so keeping the economy going & propping up bonds/stocks
---- devaluing the Easts US$ principle will not go down well
---- but in the end the US$ will fall further

Unfortunately, the US$ will not be alone in falling:
o Eurozone recently decided spend-spend-spend mattered
---- historic fiscal tightness is being abandoned
---- deficits, debt, spend vastly outweigh GDP
o Put another way, that will devalue the Euro
---- an attempt to mitigate Euro manufacturers nightmare
o Yet the US$ is also on a devaluation cycle

Together that risks competitive devaluation of currencies.
Unfortunately as India is finding, China is cheapest.
It is one way you get rid of vast amounts of debt.

Unfortunately it presents a mess:
o Declining salaries in real-terms, rising cost of living
---- most IT firms recruiting little in USA, relentless in Asia
o Declining need for workers, yet rising need in terms of PBO & tax
---- the Fed reclassifies burger flippers from service to manufacturing

Consultants are the world's most inefficient taxi drivers:
o They take you A to B via Beirut, NYC & Mars
o In so doing hopefully covering the cost of their fees
o Consultancies are involved in the economic decision making
---- so in that respect they can both be & be led by lobbyists

Lobbyists work at the contract level:
o In any process there are contracts & stakeholders
o Lobbyists aim to align their-stakeholder with your-contract
o Lobbyists manage a portfolio of economic decision makers
---- so in that respect they can work at the higher levels

Whatever, it means the market is inefficient

GM produces SUVs which are classed as trucks and so still AFAIK
not subject to the same emissions as cars or safety testing as cars.

More correctly, the market is ST inefficient, LT efficient.
o Argument lobbyists/consultants may manipulate turning points
---- either into creating them -- Reflexivity
---- so creating a self-sustaining trend they profit from
---- Iraq war might have been an instance, New American Century
o Argument also the market reacts to such in the LT
---- I guess we'll know re what the US$ etc does LT

Socialism is the biggest con masquerading as talent on a bull trend,
trend is now migrating high pay, higher low paid, higher liability from
pensions to health to education. Indeed the education cycle has been
compressed which is itself ignorant of its own opportunity cost.

So USA will fair better than EU, but the big problem overall is Big Gov't.
That is both that which is elected, and the vast array of unelected. The
solution isn't Big Gov't - as California's deficit v pay trend will show.

This is now very OT, and I'm still stuck in a phone queue...