Built like a Mercedes (?)

How far back in history do you want to go? What happened some thirty years
or more ago is hardly relevant to now or even the relevant past. It is
certainly not relevant to what is happening to Delphi, GM and Ford today.
Unless you think the US govt will buy GM and it is a good idea. The British
socialist Govt just let privately owned MG/Rover go bust and that too was a
nationalised industry at some point in the past. As indeed was Ford owned
Land Rover and Jaguar.

I think you will find that Mercedes cars with moderate engines are much more
efficient and economical today than they were ten to twenty years ago depite
gaining weight. Yes they could be even more economical but that is mainly in
the hands of the consumer who can downsize vehicle and engines and even use
diesel for significantly increased efficiency.

People earn what they are worth on the whole. Not always of course. If a
high flier with aptitude spends more than a few days cleaning then
management needs improving.

Huw

 

Because of subsidies? If so, that's not real economics - that's

Have you done the websearch I suggested? I doubt it, since you haven't come
up with the facts yet.

Biodiesel is relatively easy and cheap to manufacture. There is no need for
subsidy, since half the raw material can be either gotten for free or the
producer pays for you to remove it. There are several companies currently
doing R&D on various methods, all of whom are looking to do this as a
capitalist venture with no subsidies.

Instead of barking the same old bark, inform yourself.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

All factors have to be managed. The job of a manager is to manage and

Again, debatable at best. Managing all factors means making the best of a
situation. At times, things do not happen in the most efficient way, through
no fault of the management. Utopia does not exist.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

No. The carriages of a train are much heavier in relation to payload

Carriage weight has nothing to do with efficiency. A train is more efficient
due to the roadbed and lack of rolling resistance. Also a factor is the
number of passengers per unit. A car hold six at best, while a train is
unlimited to a large degree.

For me to travel from Philadelphia to Washington D.C., I must pay for fuel,
which would be approximately $15 assuming traffic was good. Parking in D.C.
would cost me $20 for the day, if I was lucky. Travel time would be four
hours or so, costing roughly $100 in productive time, depending on pay
rate/salary. Meanwhile, a ticket for Amtrak would cost $40-$55 for a two
hour ride. During the ride, I could do paperwork or relax.

Note, I did not include the cost of maintaining the vehicle, nor its
purchase price. Train seems cheaper to me.

Perhaps if conserving fuel is an issue, those who wish to conserve must
become more flexible, rather than the method of transit.


--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

Because of subsidies? If so, that's not real economics - that's

Have you done the websearch I suggested? I doubt it, since you haven't come
up with the facts yet.

Biodiesel is relatively easy and cheap to manufacture. There is no need for
subsidy, since half the raw material can be either gotten for free or the
producer pays for you to remove it. There are several companies currently
doing R&D on various methods, all of whom are looking to do this as a
capitalist venture with no subsidies.

Instead of barking the same old bark, inform yourself.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

How far back in history do you want to go? What happened some thirty years

False. In fact, labor unions (which are a 1920-30 phenomenom) are a reason
for the high cost of cars today. Thus, 60 and 70 years ago events took place
that affect how things work today. If you are ignorant enough to think that
something that happened on a large scale 30 years ago is irrelevant today,
you have lost the lesson of history. In fact, this is one case where
management was inefficient but the labor WAS efficient, as we now have a
glut of SUV's and poor planning on management's part.

You are barely catching up. This isn't about Mercedes becoming more
efficient over time. The point was that heavier cars use more fuel.

I see you think all things work perfectly. If such a person were promoted
into an already functioning management, exactly what position would they
take that would make the management more efficient? Perhaps the reason such
a person is not promoted is that the management is already working well, and
no room to promote exists. Need I remind you that efficient management takes
stock of all possibilities, such as who gets sacked in order to promote the
kid at the coffee machine?


--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

You are right to question my "claim". Apparently it's only 61 cars per
employee per year.

http://www.manufacturingtalk.com/news/woa/woa101.html

This may be true, but not entirely relevant to the health of the
American and European Automotive industries, which are far more
dependant on the high volume manufacturers/models.

The Honda Accord is a big seller and is therefore important. I wasn't
having a dig or anything. The productivity figure is important in
understanding the business forces that dictate where cars are made
although there are, of course, many others.

The large number of Japanese manufacturers in Europe is a direct result
of protectionist policies set in place which limited the number of
Japanese imports. The Japanese of course, didn't let a little thing like
that stop them. Although Japanese productivity is IIRC, over 90 cars
pepy, it is also true to say that Europes current impressive figures are
a direct result of the Japanese coming here.

I've given you a recent press release of the world market research
report. http://www.ftmastering.com/mmo/mmo07_1.htm will give some
historical data which might scare you. (In 1999 Toyota were doing well
with 31 cpepy.

I've also just found
http://www.frbatlanta.org/invoke.cfm?objectid=FF0566BA-5056-9F06-
99814EF979B2CB50&method=display
http://tinyurl.com/8wv9b
which provides some US figures that I was looking for. (Average 47.7 but
some plants higher than 70 including the Ford plant in Hapeville, Ga. at
102. Wow.)

 

So trains are a massively utilised transport form in America today? Yeah
right!

Even with our fuel costs in the UK today and with a massively subsidised
railway network it would cost only four people £7.50 each to travel the 220
miles to London. It would cost £55 each by train. Parking in London would
cost £30 per day while it would cost £10 at the train station but I would
need to travel a 80 mile round trip by car to reach the station and come
home on top.
Train 55*4=220 plus two days parking at 10 = 20 is a total of £240 plus
getting to and from the station.
Car 30 and 60 parking = 90 total. That is a £150 saving for four people by
car. I do not cost the depreciation and other costs for the car because it
is needed to get to the station anyhow. Three passengers can relax and do
the paperwork while in the car and there are no drunken louts or other
distractions to contend with.

Yeah right. If you miss out most of the costs that I have included yes. If
you happen to live and your destination is within walking distance of the
station as well, yes. Otherwise only if you travel alone and in your dreams.
In my example the car is only marginally more expensive than train if it
carries only one person on the journey.

Well you could say that most journies and methods of work could be modified
to become more efficient. More home working for instance. It does not
improve the maths for when you have to travel though.
Since your fuel is so much cheaper than ours I think the math works out even
more favourably for the car where you are.

Huw

 

You're right - I was thinking of gasahol. I am familiar with biodiesel.
I do question the volume of free material to convert (much less ones
that pay you to take it) once it catches on. Right now, with it just
ramping up, there is a lot of free raw material to convert -
restaurants, etc., are glad to give away what they presently have to pay
a disposal service to haul away. It just seems that when it is being
produced at levels approaching a moderate fration of traditional diesel,
the market forces will treat it like any other commodity - the sources,
realizing that they are giving away something that actually has value
will start charging what the market will bear for the presently free
material - it will start with the disposal companies being paid good
money for the material they collect, and eventually paying the
restaurants, etc. for the unconverted material. But you are right - it
will start having a beneficial influence on the traditional fuel markets.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

You're barking mad.

Trains use far less energy notably because of the low rolling resistance of
steel wheels on rails.

A train carriage can carry about 100 ppl. A 2 ton car rarely carries more than
4. Seat for seat, the train carriage ( or car ) is significantly *lighter* -
i.e. they don't weigh > 50 tons !

Graham

 

So trains are a massively utilised transport form in America today? Yeah

As I said, travel isn't always based on best efficiency or lowest cost. You
claimed a train wasn't the least costly or the most efficient, and both were
proven as assests of rail travel.

What costs did you add that I did not? NONE. Your costs for car travel of
220 miles (miles in the UK? sounds odd to me.....) are roughly £30, which
seem low, given the amount of fuel needed to travel that distance. However,
with your cost for parking, you spend £60 vs. the train at £65. Car pooling
dewfinitely helps your example. I'm sure if I added three others to defray
my costs, I too could do the Philly /DC run at about $15 total per person.
However, if you had 100 people to move, cars would NOT be the efficient way
to do it.

Once again, you are putting personal cost above efficiency, which is fine,
but it does not take away from the efficiency of the train.

Sadly, no, it does not. My example was pretty clear.

Again , you are arguing cost to the commuter, rather than efficiency of mode
of travel. Trains are more efficient at moving large numbers of people than
autos. If people were willing to spend a bit more, and get a bit more
service in return, rail travel would become more popular. But again,
popularity is not a measure of efficiency.


--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

So trains are a massively utilised transport form in America today? Yeah

As I said, travel isn't always based on best efficiency or lowest cost. You
claimed a train wasn't the least costly or the most efficient, and both were
proven as assests of rail travel.

What costs did you add that I did not? NONE. Your costs for car travel of
220 miles (miles in the UK? sounds odd to me.....) are roughly £30, which
seem low, given the amount of fuel needed to travel that distance. However,
with your cost for parking, you spend £60 vs. the train at £65. Car pooling
dewfinitely helps your example. I'm sure if I added three others to defray
my costs, I too could do the Philly /DC run at about $15 total per person.
However, if you had 100 people to move, cars would NOT be the efficient way
to do it.

Once again, you are putting personal cost above efficiency, which is fine,
but it does not take away from the efficiency of the train.

Sadly, no, it does not. My example was pretty clear.

Again , you are arguing cost to the commuter, rather than efficiency of mode
of travel. Trains are more efficient at moving large numbers of people than
autos. If people were willing to spend a bit more, and get a bit more
service in return, rail travel would become more popular. But again,
popularity is not a measure of efficiency.


--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

Do you read books starting at the end too ?

Graham

 

Are VW/Audi and BMW inferior cars in your opinion too ?

Graham

 

Curious then that where cars do take a real pouding such as in India, the
locally made Padmini is a Fiat dericative and in many Middle Eastern and African
countries that Peugeots stand up well to the task.

Graham

 

There's a difference: When I've been reading thru a book, and am on
chapter 10, I flip to chapter 10 to start reading again - I don't start
all the way back at the beginning (but the previous chapters are there
to refer back to if needed. (Not that I'm for or against top
posting, but your example works against you.)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

So why aren't European car companies in trouble like GM and Ford then ?

There's no merit in working long weeks for the hell of it btw. Most American have
a false idea of reality here anyway.

Graham

 

I think Nissan's UK plant is actually more productive then even some of its
Japanese plants. Work that one out.

Graham

 

UK Honda Accords are made in Swindon. Not American at all.

Graham

 

So, you're saying that despite working longer hours, American workers still
aren't up to the task ?

Hint - it's *what you do* during those hours - not some macho belief about the
value of the *number of hours* that counts. If you spend all your worktime
scratching your ass you won't be very productive !

Graham