What Happened to Mag Lev?

I love Google.  If Google was a wife, it would be perfect.  It lies to you by telling you exactly what you want to hear, it anticipates your every desire because it actually listens to you, and if you are busy doing something else, Google will never bother you.  And in my case, Google is working 24/7 selling my books for me.  Maybe someday there will be Google Sex, but for right now Google is working on something men care more about than sex, and that is driving around.

Now, as I have pointed out here before, the hegemon only adopts bad ideas, because good ideas make the hegemon less powerful.  Think democracy, protestantism, capitalism, Rawls, Chicago school, the FED, common core... goodness, one could be all day at this. And anyway, most people would rather be oppressed than free, so the hegemon adopts bad ideas to give people what they want, oppression, good and hard.

Libertarian bristle at Romans 13, which says you must obey the hegemon.  Libertarians try to impeach Paul by noting the hegemon executed both Paul and Jesus, and countless other people of good will.  But God, with whom libertarians often disagree, would disagree.  As to who killed Paul, if the witness of God is to be relied upon, God killed Paul.  Finally in Chronicles the mystery of who killed Saul, the ganymede, the archers, the Amelikite, or even suicide, God stops the speculation by stating "I did it."

This is scandalous, offensive to the mind of a freedom-lover.  But the fact is, whether you believe it or not, God decides who lives or dies, within the greater framework of eternity.

So the hegemon knows most people want to be oppressed, and the hegemon is doing what God allows in oppressing people.    The first job is to advance the worst ideas.  The people love that.  Heil Hitler!

Admiral Poindexter promoted something called Total Information Awareness, which was presented as an appalling idea and was widely rejected.  Shortly thereafter the CIA set up shop in Silicon Valley and then came its first offering the young, hip Google, whose meme was "don't be evil" an example of ever there was one of our rules revealing our weaknesses.

Google founders were out of the same crop of Johns Hopkins summer camp that produced Lady Gaga, Zuckerberg and Brin and many other packaged goods for mass consumption, and O! how the mass has consumed these packaged goods.  People who are utterly insignificant, except for front man value.

This all comes to mind as I see the idea of mag lev transport fading away in lieu of self-driving cars.  Self-driving cars may be the ultimate in bad alternatives to mag lev, we'll see.  But mag lev is going down the memory whole, as the minions clamor for more oppression.

Washington (AFP) - Google, Lyft and auto industry executives urged lawmakers Tuesday to help create a regulatory fast lane to help the deployment of self-driving cars.
In testimony at a Senate hearing, representatives of General Motors and auto-equipment maker Delphi touted numerous safety and environmental benefits of autonomous vehicles.
Chris Urmson, who heads the Google self-driving car project, said a consistent regulatory framework is important to deploying those technologies, and that conflicting rules in US states could limit innovation.

Mag lev vs self-driving cars.  Could there be a worse alternative as an example of hegemonic malice?

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Mag Lev Getting Closer

I've been banging on the idea of mag lev transportation here for years, and it is good to see the precursors of mag lev showing up in practical applications. The car is 1880s technology and mass transport is a bad idea. With computers we can have mass customization of travel, and mag lev allows that to happen.  But we have to have deregulation of transport first.

(I had to delete the actual embedded Bloomberg video because it slowed down the loading of the page woefully, and led to my browser crashing.    I dread going to "news sites" aside from Drudge for the simple reason their pages are so full of junk and flash that I am pretty much guaranteed a bad experience.  When will they learn?  here you go...

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/attack-of-the-pods-bite-sized-capsules-of-luxury-YYs7uzC_TbabEy__4tJ2LA.html

)

mag lev is in your future, somewhere...


Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Bad Ideas Win Out

There is a great idea that many have been working on for decades: Mag Lev Transportation.  Government never moves forward with a good plan, they always wait for the harmful idea, so they can stay in power, ruling in hell rather than serving in heaven.

See here:

“Yet the smarter machines become, the greater the likelihood that the space remaining for uniquely-human skills could shrink further,” Haldane said. He said what was previously unthinkable even a decade ago is now reality, like a driverless car.

I was in a junior high school civics class recently when I first heard this. The groupthink assignment was, with driverless cars, should we be programming to die or kill?  That is to say, a driver instinctively will turn away from a colliding car to save his own live, with the result far more often passengers present are injured or killed in wrecks than drivers.  When programming driverless cars, should we program them to act like humans, or to save the optimum amount of people (utilitarianism).

This is a classic false dilemma, and of course the kids don't even know that word today, let alone the term.  "Driverless car" is not the answer to the risk, waste and cost of transportation.  Mag Lev is the answer, but apparently in the last few months that came off the table as a full frontal movement toward "driverless cars" is afoot.

When did they shift from MagLev to "driverless car"?  Who knows?  But Mag Lev means no oil, no tires, far fewer moving parts, faster, safer cheaper, more efficient.  And if privately provided, then confidential as to who is moving where...

With Mag Lev, central computers sort out in advance who is going where by what route safely.  There is no human last second decisions, no wrecks, no waste, no risk.  The model is more like data along fibre-optic cable, not driverless cars.

Mag Lev is savings, efficiency, safety... robotizing an internal combustion engine is nuts...

As usual, the hegemon hijacked a great idea and replaced it with a terrible one...  so now, as usual, the question for policy makers, Aztec priests all, is who dies?

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

China Now Comes to USA for Cheap Labor?

Re: [spiers] China Now Comes to USA for Cheap Labor?

Response to points:
1) Maybe the automakers will renege on their pension plans sometime in the
future. But they have those costs today. And they affect the comparative cost
of labor for new companies entering the system today. Your comment is
speculative. We were talking about costs today.

2) Yep, taxes in Europe are high. So what. Prices include all the costs of
production, taxes being one of those. You say, "prices are higher for say gas".
But prices are higher for say almost everything. Been to London lately. Take
the prices of almost anything in pounds and it looks OK if you figure the price
is really dollars. But the conversion is 1 GBP to $1.82!

3) You say, "Little of what USA imports has a component cost of labor more than
5%" My point exactly. Labor costs in 3rd. world countries is very low and this
makes a difference in the costs of production and the final pricing of goods.

4) You say, "The history of heavy rail suggests otherwise... lighter and
lighter, rail roads, auto roads, mag-lev could follow the same trajectory if
govt was to get out of the road biz". But railroad and road (auto) technologies
are very different. Mag-lev may have its place in the future as one means of
propulsion for heavy (and maybe light) rail, but not as a substitute for autos
unless we fundamentally change our settlement patterns. And that kind of change
would take many decades; and require a fundamental change in personal
preferences from those of today. Not impossible in the long run, but not
possible in the short run.

You are good at what you do well - international small business development, but
you get out of your depth when your Austrian economic philosophy overwhelms your
common sense.

----- Original Message -----
From: John Spiers
To: spiers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [spiers] China Now Comes to USA for Cheap Labor?



On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:22:00 -0400, "Pete Holt" wrote :

>
> Another few points:
> 1) You say "labor cannot be critical.".... Labor costs vary among the
present US automakers
and a new company entering the system, with no legacy pension costs, etc.,
would be
expected to have lower labor costs than many existing manufacturers.

***AS USA automakers and their suppliers go bankrupt and reneg on their
pension and
medical plans, they have no legacy costs either... the truckers in the 80's,
the pilots in the
90's...eventually they'll get around to everyone.***

> 2) You say "USA pays the most for everything". But US costs of goods are
generally not
higher and in many cases lower than in other western societies. If you have
been to Europe
lately, you will find that costs of goods (both in dollars and in the local
currency) are often
higher than here.

***The europeans love their taxes...prices are higher for say gas, due to
taxes, not costs.
Telephone bills in USA have gone up as costs have dropped partially due to
huge increases in
telephone taxes.***

> 3) Your thesis that labor costs are irrelevant is absurd. Labor costs are
one component of
final total product costs. To the extent that labor is a large component of
final total product
costs (vs. materials, transportation, etc.) labor will be a relatively
important factor in the cost
of the good, its price competitiveness and ability to compete in the
marketplace.

***Little of what USA imports has a component cost of labor more than 5%...
but that is not
my main thesis, the cost of management to make baskets in USA is too
expensive,
management oversas is cheaper. People with Ag degrees go into govt, while
mexicans
manage the farms, since mexican management is cheaper than usa management. The
thing
is management cost,***

> 4) Let me know when you mag-lev it to your front door, either here or in
China. Mag-lev
(which I have ridden in China) is, as you know, a form of heavy rail and
comparable to our
train or subway systems. Not anytime soon to replace all other forms of
transportation, but a
possible substitute for heavy rail in the future.

*** The history of heavy rail suggests otherwise... lighter and lighter, rail
roads, auto roads,
mag-lev could follow the same trjectory if govt was to get out of the road
biz... in 1971 a
book predicted there would never be a need for a small computer, only huge
computers... it's
only a matter of who goes first.***

John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Spiers
> To: spiers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [spiers] China Now Comes to USA for Cheap Labor?
>
>
> Exactly... China is going to do exactly what USA has been doing... "So they
will take a
> respected name (MG), build it with high priced labor, use Chinese-sourced
parts, and
make
> good margins" Since USA pays the most for everything, they can do this.
>
> But a couple of points... if the Chinese can use high priced USA labor and
make money,
then
> labor cannot be critical. If they turn a nice profit, how so? since USA
automakers cannot. If
> they do, the difference will necessarily be Chinese management, since all
other factors will
be
> the same.
>
> Another reason to make cars in USA is China has a labor shortage right now,
and
> unemployment is rising in USA if you take govt jobs out of the picture. With
inflation, USA
> labor has been getting cheaper.
>
> I agree China will sell these cars inside usa, because they will cost too
much to sell
outside
> the USA, any more than any other USA car will sell well outside of usa.
>
> Finally, the Chinese market is growing rapidly, so saturation is hard to
gauge, I suspect
there
> will be new car companies yearly in china, until the decide to leapfrog USA
and go
completely
> mag-lev.
>
> John
>
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:26:02 -0700, Paul Snyder
wrote :
>
> >
> > I don't think it supports your theory about management. It's just an
> > investment decision. The Chinese auto market is super-saturated, so
> > Nanking Motors is looking to put their money somewhere it will grow
> > better. So they will take a respected name (MG), build it with high
> > priced labor, use Chinese-sourced parts, and make good margins. The
> > car will sell only in the US, I predict.
> >
> > On Jul 17, 2006, at 1:18 PM, John Spiers wrote:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > If you believe cheap labor is a factor in int'l trade, then what do
> > > you make of China to build
> > > British cars in USA?
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/lu9fq
> > >
> > >
> > > John

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

China Now Comes to USA for Cheap Labor?

Re: [spiers] China Now Comes to USA for Cheap Labor?


On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:22:00 -0400, "Pete Holt" wrote :

>
> Another few points:
> 1) You say "labor cannot be critical.".... Labor costs vary among the present
US automakers
and a new company entering the system, with no legacy pension costs, etc., would
be
expected to have lower labor costs than many existing manufacturers.

***AS USA automakers and their suppliers go bankrupt and reneg on their pension
and
medical plans, they have no legacy costs either... the truckers in the 80's,
the pilots in the
90's...eventually they'll get around to everyone.***

> 2) You say "USA pays the most for everything". But US costs of goods are
generally not
higher and in many cases lower than in other western societies. If you have
been to Europe
lately, you will find that costs of goods (both in dollars and in the local
currency) are often
higher than here.

***The europeans love their taxes...prices are higher for say gas, due to taxes,
not costs.
Telephone bills in USA have gone up as costs have dropped partially due to huge
increases in
telephone taxes.***

> 3) Your thesis that labor costs are irrelevant is absurd. Labor costs are one
component of
final total product costs. To the extent that labor is a large component of
final total product
costs (vs. materials, transportation, etc.) labor will be a relatively important
factor in the cost
of the good, its price competitiveness and ability to compete in the
marketplace.

***Little of what USA imports has a component cost of labor more than 5%... but
that is not
my main thesis, the cost of management to make baskets in USA is too expensive,
management oversas is cheaper. People with Ag degrees go into govt, while
mexicans
manage the farms, since mexican management is cheaper than usa management. The
thing
is management cost,***

> 4) Let me know when you mag-lev it to your front door, either here or in
China. Mag-lev
(which I have ridden in China) is, as you know, a form of heavy rail and
comparable to our
train or subway systems. Not anytime soon to replace all other forms of
transportation, but a
possible substitute for heavy rail in the future.

*** The history of heavy rail suggests otherwise... lighter and lighter, rail
roads, auto roads,
mag-lev could follow the same trjectory if govt was to get out of the road
biz... in 1971 a
book predicted there would never be a need for a small computer, only huge
computers... it's
only a matter of who goes first.***

John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Spiers
> To: spiers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [spiers] China Now Comes to USA for Cheap Labor?
>
>
> Exactly... China is going to do exactly what USA has been doing... "So they
will take a
> respected name (MG), build it with high priced labor, use Chinese-sourced
parts, and
make
> good margins" Since USA pays the most for everything, they can do this.
>
> But a couple of points... if the Chinese can use high priced USA labor and
make money,
then
> labor cannot be critical. If they turn a nice profit, how so? since USA
automakers cannot. If
> they do, the difference will necessarily be Chinese management, since all
other factors will
be
> the same.
>
> Another reason to make cars in USA is China has a labor shortage right now,
and
> unemployment is rising in USA if you take govt jobs out of the picture. With
inflation, USA
> labor has been getting cheaper.
>
> I agree China will sell these cars inside usa, because they will cost too
much to sell
outside
> the USA, any more than any other USA car will sell well outside of usa.
>
> Finally, the Chinese market is growing rapidly, so saturation is hard to
gauge, I suspect
there
> will be new car companies yearly in china, until the decide to leapfrog USA
and go
completely
> mag-lev.
>
> John
>
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:26:02 -0700, Paul Snyder
wrote :
>
> >
> > I don't think it supports your theory about management. It's just an
> > investment decision. The Chinese auto market is super-saturated, so
> > Nanking Motors is looking to put their money somewhere it will grow
> > better. So they will take a respected name (MG), build it with high
> > priced labor, use Chinese-sourced parts, and make good margins. The
> > car will sell only in the US, I predict.
> >
> > On Jul 17, 2006, at 1:18 PM, John Spiers wrote:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > If you believe cheap labor is a factor in int'l trade, then what do
> > > you make of China to build
> > > British cars in USA?
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/lu9fq
> > >
> > >
> > > John

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Mag Lev and Warehouse Operations

Just as we went from trains to cars in mass transit, we are moving from trains to pod in Mag Lev.  As Google moves us closer to Mag Lev with the driverless cars, here is a warehouse management company that has automated the pick and pack.  Having run warehouses, there are some delighted aspects.

Don't send the picker to the shelves, send the shelves to the picker. The fetch pod goes and gets a rack that has an item an order wants, and brings it to the packer.

Although not mentioned, there are no SKUs.  Unthinkable!  But someone thought it.  The inventory is spread all over the warehouse, with goodies of all sorts on one rack. RFID, GPS etc.

Whole lotta traffic to be dealt with, all computer controlled.  This is a great test case for mag lev, having controls ever improved on 2 MPH pods, we can work up from there.

The fetch pod goes and gets a rack that has an item an order wants, and brings it to the packer.
We have vast sums dedicated to State provision of roads.  After blowing $200 million on studies, Oregon/Washington have canned a plan for another bridge across the Columbia River.  Instead of $200 million bridges to know where, just blow the $200 million and forget the bridge. Seattle has spent over a billion dollars on a 24 foot hole in the ground.  Ka-ching!


Reflect at how Amazon can now deploy warehouses all over the world without having to worry about cross-cultural concerns.

If $15 an hour minimum wage is coming, then eliminating humans is economical.  Amazon owns the tech and will sell it everywhere, and expand its commercial fulfillment division, to the detriment of minimum wage and entry level folks everywhere.  As distribution becomes more centralized, control of goods gets easier.

At the same time, those associated with the State continue to direct resources to campaign contributors who earn $200 million to talk a few years and draw pictures about a bridge.  Small business is starved of profits as taxes are mulcted to fund re-election campaigns.  Markets are distorted as the range of goods and services in demand by the 1% are called forth, they of a false economy.

News is some 320,000 Fed employees owe $3.3 billion up 2.6% from last year.  I was looking for this figure because my informal study says whole lotta people experienced tax hikes this year, but not a peep from Republicans.  Fed employees are actually better are compliance than the general population with 3.2% delinquency v 8.7% for the general population.  (Within the govt, the range of which agencies have what delinquency rates is telling.)

What is odd that they pay taxes at all.  Tax collection is expensive, and Fed employees are paid out of taxes.  Why not just pay them a net and make their jobs tax exempt?

All of this State nonsense militates against progress, indeed, we are surely too far gone to correct.  The problem is lending credit at usury, in which there is no rational limit.  There will be an irrational denouement, because that which cannot go on eventually stops.  Crash.  $200 million dollar no bridge?  Who cares?  Great grandkids will pay! But when it goes down, we'll need to remember all of these positive efforts and build on those.

Update:

I know people think my assertion all of these super-successful dot.coms are USA intel ops is a little out there, but here...

"Headquartered in the small tech hub of Burnaby, on Canada's west coast, D-Wave has raised upwards of $100m in venture capital from the likes of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)."

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27264552


Sheeesh... another update...

"On Feb. 14, 2013, the CIA awarded the contract to Amazon.com (AMZN). The e-commerce company, a pioneer in offering cloud computing services to corporate customers from Nokia (NOK) to Pfizer (PFE), had persuaded the spymasters that its public cloud could be replicated within the CIA’s walls. Amazon had been bleeding IBM for years—its rent-a-server-with-your-credit-card model was a direct threat to IBM’s IT outsourcing business—but this was different. Amazon beat IBM for a plum contract on something like its home turf, and it hadn’t done so simply by undercutting IBM on price. IBM learned that its bid was more than a third cheaper than Amazon’s and officially protested the CIA decision."

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-22/ibms-eps-target-unhelpful-amid-cloud-computing-challenges

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Anarchy & Innovation - More Better Cheaper Faster

Sitting in traffic is a good time to reflect on state monopoly and provision. Time was when making a long distance call, you get a person cut in and say "I am sorry, all circuits are busy."  Comedian Lily Tomlin built a career on making fun of the the telephone lady in the 1960s, a character we all knew all too well.  We suffered under the theory, taught in law and economics schools, which the state ordered all patterns and practices, that there was such a thing as a natural monopoly, and the role of the state was to be the beneficial umpire between competing factions for access to the monopoly.

Then came the challenge from MCI, and eventually the US Supreme Court decided that the nonsense was to end, and we got deregulation of telephones, the connection of telephones to computers, and then the internet.  WE were denied the good of all that as far back as the 1950s because of nonsense state suppression of free markets.  So now we have more better cheaper faster research and communication.

And exact analogy to telecommunications is transportation.  If we were to eliminate the nonsense theory that there is a natural monopoly on roads, when it comes to transportation, we'd get more better cheaper faster.  Just like in telephones, we'd get more options for transport, it would be better transport, it would be cheaper, and faster.

But but but, there is a difference between electrons and people.  Yes, there is a difference, but in scale not kind.  We've worked out ways of moving phenomenal amounts of data down the information superhighway.

Yes, we can scale up to moving phenomenal amounts of people, by moving ahead to mag lev and whatever else may come forth in a relatively free market.  Computers can work out the mass of people desiring to get from one place to another, stadia can be built in the woods instead of inner cities, driverless trucks can be making deliveries at odd hours, innovations as inconceivable as the internet was at the advent of telephone deregulation are as latent in deregulation of the roads and transportation.

The Seattle area must have some of the worst people involved in state provision of roads because we have some of the worst traffic in the country.  And by election fraud, these people have been given another billion plus to replace an eight lane highway with a two lane tunnel.  Smart thinking.  The traffic across Lake Washington is very bad, so the Republican called for twelve lane highway, and the democrats compromised at eight.    In a free market we would get more for less, we'd be taking down bridges because we'd always be moving more people faster with less.  Only a state would call traffic jams "rush hour."  Instead of solving the problem by more slower roads, the free market would speed the traffic up, mag lev at 400 miles per hour instead of 200 miles per hour when traffic warranted it.

Now these kinds of changes and inventions and innovation, similar to what we say with the internet, would command fantastic resources and make for unimaginable wealth, depending on the system that introduced it.  In capitalism, the wealth would be concentrated on a few, in a free market it would the  widening of goods and services and those who had access to them.

But the nature of the state is to create shortages and manage people by wait times. One palpable benefit of concentrated wealth is no wait times.  The billionaire with the private jet. The people in the commanding heights have no interest in seeing such advancements because they would rather rule over ruins than serve others as just another artist.  What fun is power if everyone has access to private jets?

The City of Seattle obligated taxpayers to build and pay for a 1880s technology trolley car for Paul Allen, at a cost of about $43 million a mile, plus some $25 million landlords kicked in for their toy.  In China, they built a mag lev system, using German Technology, at a cost of $63 million a mile, all in.

So for roughly the same money, we could have 2001 technology, plus fantastic new cutting edge technological innovations.

In a free market the innovators compete on design and introduce the new idea in response to experienced problems.  Here is the first Apple computer.

wikipedia

Over time, such innovations, through constant market feedback and iterations, become ubiquitous, we get more better cheaper faster.  Here is the Apple computer, today.

Apple

I noticed this first working in small import companies, where the owner explicated how the markets work.  If you look at the USA in decline, and China on the rise, USA building toy trolleys for the individually wealthy at the expense of the workers, while Communist China builds mag lev, and then the fact that Hong Kong is under the aegis of the Communist party, one must begin to reckon that net net consumers are better of under communism than capitalism.  Now that is a false dilemma, since free markets are better than both, but between the two, the communist system seems to yield better results.

Doctors will complain that the use of technology has made the cost of medicine rise.    Only in a heavily state regulated environment does technology make costs rise.  Technology normally makes costs fall.

And by the way, for those who can read Chinese, here is a poster for one of the campaigns Chairman launched.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

China Now Comes to USA for Cheap Labor?

Re: [spiers] China Now Comes to USA for Cheap Labor?

Another few points:
1) You say "labor cannot be critical. If they turn a nice profit, how so? since
USA automakers cannot. If they do, the difference will necessarily be Chinese
management, since all other factors will be the same." But, of course, labor
costs are not necessary the same. Labor costs vary among the present US
automakers and a new company entering the system, with no legacy pension costs,
etc., would be expected to have lower labor costs than many existing
manufacturers. That is not to say that management (and other factors of
production) are not also important.
2) You say "USA pays the most for everything". But US costs of goods are
generally not higher and in many cases lower than in other western societies.
If you have been to Europe lately, you will find that costs of goods (both in
dollars and in the local currency) are often higher than here.
3) Your thesis that labor costs are irrelevant is absurd. Labor costs are one
component of final total product costs. To the extent that labor is a large
component of final total product costs (vs. materials, transportation, etc.)
labor will be a relatively important factor in the cost of the good, its price
competitiveness and ability to compete in the marketplace.
4) Let me know when you mag-lev it to your front door, either here or in China.
Mag-lev (which I have ridden in China) is, as you know, a form of heavy rail and
comparable to our train or subway systems. Not anytime soon to replace all
other forms of transportation, but a possible substitute for heavy rail in the
future.

----- Original Message -----
From: John Spiers
To: spiers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [spiers] China Now Comes to USA for Cheap Labor?


Exactly... China is going to do exactly what USA has been doing... "So they
will take a
respected name (MG), build it with high priced labor, use Chinese-sourced
parts, and make
good margins" Since USA pays the most for everything, they can do this.

But a couple of points... if the Chinese can use high priced USA labor and
make money, then
labor cannot be critical. If they turn a nice profit, how so? since USA
automakers cannot. If
they do, the difference will necessarily be Chinese management, since all
other factors will be
the same.

Another reason to make cars in USA is China has a labor shortage right now,
and
unemployment is rising in USA if you take govt jobs out of the picture. With
inflation, USA
labor has been getting cheaper.

I agree China will sell these cars inside usa, because they will cost too much
to sell outside
the USA, any more than any other USA car will sell well outside of usa.

Finally, the Chinese market is growing rapidly, so saturation is hard to
gauge, I suspect there
will be new car companies yearly in china, until the decide to leapfrog USA
and go completely
mag-lev.

John

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:26:02 -0700, Paul Snyder
wrote :

>
> I don't think it supports your theory about management. It's just an
> investment decision. The Chinese auto market is super-saturated, so
> Nanking Motors is looking to put their money somewhere it will grow
> better. So they will take a respected name (MG), build it with high
> priced labor, use Chinese-sourced parts, and make good margins. The
> car will sell only in the US, I predict.
>
> On Jul 17, 2006, at 1:18 PM, John Spiers wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > If you believe cheap labor is a factor in int'l trade, then what do
> > you make of China to build
> > British cars in USA?
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/lu9fq
> >
> >
> > John

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

We Pay Most for Mass Transit

Folks,

Here are some figures from The Standard, a Hong Kong business paper, on what
China is
paying to get Mag Lev Transport, with the help of the Germans, and compared with
some
figure for mass transit in Seattle. All figures in dollars...


Location Mode Cost per mile Cost per kilometer

USA
Monorail 1 billion 620 Million

Light rail 208 Million 129 million

China
Mag Lev 60 million 37.5 Million


As you can see, China is leapfrogging us, while we mess around with 1820's
technology, yet
we pay far more. The article stated the Chinese believe they could shave a
third off those
prices for mag lev, while in USA every few months they announce the cost will be
higher than
anticipated.

Of course the super-premium cost in USA is largely waste, fraud and abuse as was
made
clear when C C Meyers rebuilt the LA Freeways in 66 days back after the '94
Northridge
earthquake in LA, 34 days ahead of schedule and for a mere 30 million. IN this
case it was
achieved by having the gov't step aside.

In China,with the German
advisers... perhaps they are doing the same thing.

John

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Mag Lev Lexus Skateboards

This blog has for years advocated Mag-Lev as a solution to pollution, energy costs, foreign dependency, police abuse, transportation inefficiency and a host of other problems.  Now come Lexus with a working solution:

Before we get to that, here's a brief description how it works: Lexus’s hoverboard uses magnetic levitation, or maglev, to achieve frictionless movement. Liquid nitrogen-cooled superconductors are combined with a magnetic surface to essentially repel gravity. Maglev technology itself isn’t new, and this isn't the first hoverboard to use it. American startup Arx Pax raised over half a million dollars last year through a Kickstarter campaign to fund its Hendo Hoverboard.

Note these are private company efforts, the hegemon is merely getting in the way.  And indeed, if we want to see a revolution and economic recovery as grand as we saw with telecommunications when Carter deregulated phones and Al Gore gave us the internet, then we need to deregulated transportation so private companies can raise equity on real assets and build out a mag lev system, where China is ahead of us already.  To make this happen, the Hegemon has to relinquish power, as Carter (my favorite president) did when he eliminated the ICC.  (Carter did the heavy lifting, the right thing, and Reagan got the credit for the massive benefit to the economy.)

Usually such technological advance goes from the general to the specific: the railroad steam engine for mass use drilled down over time to the internal combustion personal locomotion, the auto+mobile.  We still use the word "car" (from an individual train car) to refer to a individual transport unit.  But this time it seems to be going from the individual (the skate boarder) to the car, trucks, railroads.  The country that is the least regulated and most free market will win this contest.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

New Product Intro - Mag Lev

MagLev transport is the future, and we can use it now to jump start our economy.  Of course, this kind of activity has been usually govt funded, but the govt is happily bust.  So how to do it now?  Free markets, of course.

 I think there is one heck of free market solution to maglev in USA...  Gianni "the torpedo" Fuoco who has 20 acres in Elizabeth New Jersey, and Eddie Feldstein who has 20 acres in Long Beach California should announce the Great American Mag Lev Transport Co... and sell stock to buy up the land across usa to lay down mag lev transport.  Put their map up on the net, and let googlemaps show everyone who has property how they might sell out (or trade their home equity for GAMLETCO stock) ... of course obstinate landowners will find they have been bypassed, but in essence this would be the game.

We need to leapfrog the rest of the world in tech..

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

China Now Comes to USA for Cheap Labor?

Re: China Now Comes to USA for Cheap Labor?

--- In spiers@yahoogroups.com, "Pete Holt" wrote:
>
> Response to points:
> 1) Maybe the automakers will renege on their pension plans sometime in the
future. But they have those costs today. ... We were talking about costs
today.

*** Much of what happens today is based on calculations of what will be true 10
- 30
years from now... hence bonds quoted in those terms... where China is today was
decided by Deng Xiaoping's crew back in 1980. Where we are today in USA was set
in
motion by the Bush-Clinton-Bush team of the last 15 years.***
>
> 2) Yep, taxes in Europe are high. So what. ***

*** Ireland is criticized for not charging the same high taxes as the other EU
countries, causing eurobiz to HQ in Ireland; it is a sore point and matters very
much
in the cheme of things. HK outperforms USA pound for pound becuase their taxes
are lower.***

>
> 3) You say, "Little of what USA imports has a component cost of labor more
than
5%" My point exactly. Labor costs in 3rd. world countries is very low and this
makes a
difference in the costs of production and the final pricing of goods.

***Here is the part that I find hard to communicate. The cock crows before the
sun
rises, but it has nothing to do with making the sun rise. Labor rates may in
fact be
cheaper, but it is not the reason for the trade. If you study the trade
patterns, it is
clear there is a negative correlation between cheap labor and trade. In 3rd
world
countries, where labor rates are low, in fact the component cost of labor is
high, for
say baskets. We do extremely little biz with such producers.***

>
> 4) You say, "The history of heavy rail suggests otherwise... lighter and
lighter, rail
roads, auto roads, mag-lev could follow the same trajectory if govt was to get
out of
the road biz". But railroad and road (auto) technologies are very different.
Mag-lev
may have its place in the future as one means of propulsion for heavy (and maybe
light) rail, but not as a substitute for autos unless we fundamentally change
our
settlement patterns. And that kind of change would take many decades; and
require
a fundamental change in personal preferences from those of today. Not
impossible
in the long run, but not possible in the short run.

***Agreed, we'll not see mag lev personal in USA within the next 25 years. But
elsewhere, yes.***
>
> You are good at what you do well - international small business development,
but
you get out of your depth when your Austrian economic philosophy overwhelms your
common sense.

***You made this point before, but it has an internal contradiction. If I know
what I
am talking about in int'l small biz dev , and my analysis is "Austrian" how can
I be
doing well and be wrong? For me the free market philosophy both explained what
I
was seeing in the real world and guided me out of the dead -ends the other
philosophies entrapped. But I am open to arguments that explain a better
philosophical basis for int'l trade.***

John

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Charities Destroy Bike Business in Africa

I guess giving away free used bicycles is the new imperialism. USA once gave away fighter jets. How far done we've come. A week or so ago I blogged about the bicycle millionaire who was setting up a semi-charity to distribute bikes. His inspiration was the carcasses of disposed of bicycles along roads in Africa. There were no parts or repair facilities for bikes. So when broken, bikes are discarded. Now I see my Parish is working up a bike-donation scheme for Africa too.

Who benefits from bikes leaving USA? I heard BMW maintains their high resale value for their cars by taking in and shipping some units to South America to keep a balanced scarcity enough to maintain high resale prices. The net cost of the program is more than made up for in higher BMW prices all along the USA BMW supply chain. Used bikes leaving usa makes the price of new bikes higher.

And who believes these bikes will magically end up in anyones hands for free? For the bikes to get into the countries, they have to go through govt channels and checks. These are all run by Harvard educated minions of USA imperialism who will exact a high price for these bikes.

This program will ruin African bike merchants. What is your job? Are you in insurance, furniture or have a restaurant? What if Africans decided there was not enough of what you offered in USA, and decided to ship it in for free to help out? What if insurance, furniture of food could be had for free, compliments of Africa? What would happen to your business. Struggling African bike merchants will not be pleased by USA "charity."

Africans don't need free bikes. They need freedom to contract, with reliable banks, so they know if they earn money banks won't just steal it. HSBC is in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, so Georgians are enjoying trustworthy, reliable banking.

And far more important, Africans need freedom from kleptocratic govts, backed by usa kleptocrats. Trustworthy banking is necessary, but not sufficient. Africa, like USA, also need freedom from kleptocratic govt. No point in opening banks where government is just going to steal all of the producers money. No point in keeping banks where the government is just stealing all the producers money.

Bikes are old technology. What makes us think, that given the chance, Africans would not just skip old technology? Mongolians, in the 80's when they had relative freedom, did not buy up used, defunct usa telephones systems, they skipped that technology and went straight to cell phones. If Africans had freedom, we could expect them to skip bikes, and internal combbustion engine, and go straight to mag lev.

We cannot have mag lev becuase our regime is based on internal combustin engine. I think it was Emerson who complained (referring to the usa war between the states) that it took so few people to get democracy into a war. Those few people who got usa in continuous war have their wealth based on internal combustion engine. USA will end before that changes. (USA as we know it will end because that will not change.)

Free Africans may decide that a finite series of explosions to gain transportation (internal combustion) is not as good as the permanent continuous propulsion that comes from two magnets resisting each other (mag lev).

WE can't have that. So our response is to ship Africans our used bikes, and call it charity.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Trolley Cars, Diesel vs Gasoline

I rode the charming trolley cars in San Francisco recently, and marvelled at the
restoration of
the system that took place in the mid-90's. Here they paid 21st century
technology prices for
19th century technology.

Every single reason for not integrating magnetic levitation transport is
apparent in
maintaining the trolley cars today. Gas autos must steer clear of
trolleys...trolleys don't stop
but run right into intersections... the maintentance of trolleys is actually
much harder than
mag lev.

Mongolia has skipped the wired telephone service, opting to jump straight into
al wireless.
China has working mag lev transport between Shanghai airport and Shanghai...300
MPH, 6
inches above the ground, clean quiet smooth and cheap. Wouldn't it be wonderful
if china
announced it was skipping gas autos and going straight to mag lev, the world can
keep its
oil?

sigh.

John


On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:15:05 -0800 (PST), M A Granich wrote
:

> The highest mileage, non-hybred cars are the German VW
> diesels(Golf, Jetta, and Passat). The diesel 2 stroke
> cycle is more efficient than the "Otto" 4 stroke
> cycle. I've also read that in Europe, where gas is
> 3x more expensive than in the US, 40% of all new cars
> sold are diesel. Big-rigs use diesel engines because
> of the fuel economy, power, and reliability.
>
> Yes, they are dirty. But I'm hopefull there is a
> technological answer to that problem.
>
> Anthony
>
> --- Ben Sinks wrote:
>
> > >>You can change the
> > engine to a much more efficient diesel <<
> >
> >
> > I'm not a mechanic, but I've been told that diesel
> > engines do not have higher gas milage than gasonline
> > engines; in fact (I've been told) they have less
> > milage than gas. And, they are less invironment
> > friendly as well. They are only good for heavy
> > vehicles that need the power - like big-rigs or fire
> > trucks.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Mag Lev and Unemployment

Previously in USA history, as disruptive technology came along, there was non-regulation or deregulation to accomodate people adapting to the changes and finding work and jobs.  All those people trapped in careers at Ma Bell in the 1980s, we able to quickly learn how to thrive in the new alternative after being fired from Ma Bell.  Buggy whip makers began to wrap leather in steering wheels for Ford Motor Company.

We no longer have that.  The rules, the regulations, taxes,  etc now compel innovators to outsource the new jobs, and the welfare state traps the unemployed.

Mish has a series on a topic dear to my heart, and that is driverless trucks, a step toward mag lev.  There is no need for drivers any longer, and this will work well if the Hegemon is not allowed ot participate.  We only need to look at electric cars to see the most recent mess they make of things, of everything.  They can't do their basic job, keep attackers out on 9-11, keep ebola out today, get currency right, manage the borders, etc.  Why would anyone think they could manage or contribute anything in mag lev and smart roads?

 But an even more basic problem is as all these truckers and taxi drivers become unemployed, there will be no new industries opening to which they may migrate.  The telephone monopoly break-up was attended by telephone deregulation.  No end to the work there.  There is no longer any deregulation in USA.  More welfare prisons ahead.

Deregulate something.  Anything.  Banking, medicine, roads...  food, anything.  The survival of USA depends on it.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

LA - LV Mag Lev

Finally, we'll get some MagLev in USA... too bad in Seattle we paid 4 times as much for 1880's trolly fixed rail to benefit a billionaire developer than mag lev would have4 cost, but hey, we'll get more of that now that the democrats are coming into power.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Mag Lev In America

Good to see this is private-money led, but bad to see they want government money involved. Why not just buy mag lev terminal land at both ends and announce a corporation to raise money to build it. et the govt completely out...

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Money and Industry

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "We Are Living And Dying for The Banks": 

I don't understand how these above business examples, e.g., coal, natural gas, etc., would not exist in a free market. 

*** The companies that trade those are creatures of the state.  In a free market, ther are no businesses thata re a creature of the state.  No doubt there would be coal and oil sold, but not by creatures of the state.  The creatures of the state crowd out free market traders.***

Did you mean mag-lev wind turbines?:

http://inhabitat.com/super-powered-magnetic-wind-turbine-maglev/

*** No, mag lev transport.  The auto companiesa re creatures of the state, so they crowd out fre market transport.   In Hong Kong, mass transit is privately owned.***

Also, federal reserve notes are essentially "money"?

***No, not even close...***

 - these notes are susceptible to government malfeasance and mismanagement (e.g., deflation or hyperinflation, currency devaluation)?

fed. res. notes (U.S. dollar paper money) = an object generally accepted as payment for goods:

***Right, but they are not money.***

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

*** The wikipedia article is wrong...  money is a medium of exchange, and as store of value. It extinguishes a debt.  today only gold and silver does that,   Federal reserve notes are fiat currency that can easily fail to extinguish debt, as have all other previous currency, eventually.  Believing otherwise is risky.***

You lost me with the last paragraph regarding the use of credit and not taking money out of a business (?).

*** go to http://hbhblog.blogspot.com/search?q=money   and click through on the various pages...

John

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Subsidies

Folks,

In all the talk of unfair trade due to subsidies, I note there is no mention of the fundamental subsidies such companies as Boeing get.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7014370.stm

Aluminum is made from bauxite which is strip-mined, about the worse kind of mining. To get aluminum from bauxite, tremendous amounts of electricity is required. Thus, the rivers are dammed at taxpayers expense, and electricity is subsidized to make aluminum.

Boeing has paid no net taxes in decades, and gets county services like fire suppression at taxpayers expense.

If what Boeing costs taxpayers was actually charged off to customers, then Boeing jets would
cost more than Airbus. If Airbus also charged what they cost, air travel might be too
expensive, certainly more expensive. Could we live without air travel? Or would we work out
an alternative? Or, free of subsidies, would investment distribute in ways that the airline
industries would exist, but just on alternative, self-supporting industrial model?

Certainly in the unsubsidized category of private jets, the price has fallen dramatically as they
now make the fuselages without aluminum.

I read somewhere the Toyota Pius hybrid car costs something like $250,000 each, at present
amortization of the investments, although they sell for something like $20,000. The
difference is subsidized by taxpayers.

What if we had no subsidies for toyota? Would our investment allocation result in better
transportation? Would we have mag lev? Or somethign else? In seattle they have just finished
laying in light rail, 1880's technology, costing deca-millions. China is laying in mag lev at
1/3 the per mile cost.

What if we did not subsidizes education and medicine. Would we get more better cheaper
faster? We have every other time we've withdrawn subsidies.

John

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Don't Touch Your Car!

A kid in one of my classes shared how the Toyota Corolla has 24 CPUs all set to the lowest common denominator, and how there was good money hooking up a laptop to the car and resetting those CPUs for better gas mileage, or in tandem with a better carburetor programming for 0-60 faster and so on.  Sounds to me just like the kids in the 1950s who souped up old cars.  A fine American tradition.  And these kids make good money souping up modern cars, competing on design.

But apparently not for long.  Anthony sends this in...

You can't tinker with your own car because there is a copyright on it.    You really don't own your car.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/automakers-say-you-dont-really-own-your-car

Yes, I know, you can pay through the nose for your custom auto,  but I would like Open Source autos to do for the automobile industry what Uber has done for the taxi industry.   I'm hopeful open source cars will crush these old dinosaur car companies once and forall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_car
It would be nice to return to coach design being separate from chassis and engine design.   We need new versions of coach builders like Fleetwood or Pinifarini or Duesenberg.   Yes, I want to drive my open source LaGrande Torpedo.      

Long ago the big three became the only three when they pooled their patents and made it impossible for anyone else to get into the business.  When an insider like John DeLorean designed his way around them, they simply set him up on some outrageous coke deal.

When we bailed out FORD, GM Chrysler (YES! Ford was bailed out too!) in 2008 we should have done so at the price of open sourcing all of their patents.  Now, we taxpayers are presently, every day, bailing out the auto companies again in anticipation of the next crash.  The FEDS are pushing subprime auto loans to people who can barely raise a fog on a mirror can buy a new car.  It does not take much to qualify as an UBER driver, but if you qualify, you are automatically approved for the purchase of a new car.  Kicker: weekly payments direct from Uber to the loan company, up to 30% interest.  So even the critical article misses, literally, the money shot:

In theory, this has been good for Uber (the company gets more supply of the one commodity — drivers — it needs most). And it's good for drivers (they get access to vehicles they might not be able to finance otherwise, and at lower prices).

Yes, the prices are lower than you can get yourself with shot credit, but not lower than you can get with  cash.  So here we are again, when this goes bad, we'll see credit destruction and thus credit deflation. Those people are working for the finance company, not themselves.

I think we need to go one better: mag lev transport, privately owned, in which the basic pod, like the inside of a telephone, is the same in all instances, but you can customize your "body by Fisher" to ride the mag lev rails.  Leave internal combustion for off-roading.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post