I'm gonna throw up! Really! I'm gonna throw up!
- Thread starter Wraith
- Start date
- Status
- Aug 2, 2000
- 13,510
- 19
On that one I must beg to differ! More trouble with Cummins engines (and Cummins NW) than I care to even think about. It goes like this:
CAT <----This is your brain
CUMMINS <----This is your brain on drugs!
needsprayer
Member
- Oct 24, 2001
- 109
- 0
weimedog,
"So when we, as a buying/voting population; decide its time to change a "trend" our spending dollars AND our votes are the tools we have. "
Venture capitalist .... " because his game is simply to pick 10-15 interesting new companies in a budding technology or market and INVEST...hoping that just ONE will make it and go public in a big way..."
You seem to think that the little guy matters. Being the cynic that I am, I believe that the Venture capitalist invests in politicians as heavily as he invests in interesting new companies. The reduction of State Department export restrictions on hi-tech products is one example (as you well know). This practice of self-fulfilling spending is intended to reduce the risk to the Venture guy. However, it can end up perpetuating a bad bet, not to mention putting our nation and your children at risk. The little guy has nothing to do with this kind of power play.
"And the powers to be use Marketing/Politics to push trends to their advantage...look at the Magazines in our industry and the general press in Politics...." Correcto Mundo
The global economy decided the fate of the .coms. This was first seen in Taiwan and finally the USA.
"So when we, as a buying/voting population; decide its time to change a "trend" our spending dollars AND our votes are the tools we have. "
Venture capitalist .... " because his game is simply to pick 10-15 interesting new companies in a budding technology or market and INVEST...hoping that just ONE will make it and go public in a big way..."
You seem to think that the little guy matters. Being the cynic that I am, I believe that the Venture capitalist invests in politicians as heavily as he invests in interesting new companies. The reduction of State Department export restrictions on hi-tech products is one example (as you well know). This practice of self-fulfilling spending is intended to reduce the risk to the Venture guy. However, it can end up perpetuating a bad bet, not to mention putting our nation and your children at risk. The little guy has nothing to do with this kind of power play.
"And the powers to be use Marketing/Politics to push trends to their advantage...look at the Magazines in our industry and the general press in Politics...." Correcto Mundo
The global economy decided the fate of the .coms. This was first seen in Taiwan and finally the USA.
bwalker
LIFETIME SPONSOR
- Jan 10, 2000
- 839
- 0
While that may be true, the fact remains that they would not operate if it where not for industries that produce. This is basic economic theory. You must produce something to have a viable economy.BTW this was meant as a slam to any industry, be it it service or otherwise.
- Oct 13, 1999
- 2,812
- 0
Hmmm, both examples are heavily into global sourcing except where the labor unions have contracted to keep work here in the U.S.
Did you know that GE manufactures parts for EMD locomotives either... not that I would know anything about that. ;)
"The global economy decided the fate of the .coms. This was first seen in Taiwan and finally the USA."
So tell me what is an economy if it isn't based on a bunch of little guys buying, taxes, and a bunch of govenment spending?
I guess there are many underpinnings of "economies" but two very important ones are consumer spending and the spending of tax money. Both those are effected by the masses of little guys who vote and buy products. Computer and car companies spend money to SELL to a bunch of little guys therefor corperate spending is very much impacted by the trends of little guys buying stuff.
So the bottom line with the ".com's" was they were oversold as a concept. Tons of capital evaporated in the quest for the magic ".com" and there wasn't enough buying consumers to justify the expense...and a lot of the .com and .com related companies crashed and burned. Technology stocks took a hit..but the signes were around a year or so prior to the recession. And many other industries were tied to those technology industries...and they took a hit.
Many computer sales were projected based on the magic ".com" revolution. Lots of the components are built in South East Asia..including Taiwan. So when the BIG guys started cutting back on their sales projections, sensing problems with this new "trend", they stopped making orders for hardware, and in some cases stuffed their overseas suppliers. So as that process began to roll, the suppiers (Mostly in Aisa) took the first hit. And then The analysis started..and then the rest happened in a hurry. Simplification? maybe. But not nearly as simplistic as saying something like "the economy did it" Bottom line the economy is always about decisions made by people. In masses. Which is my point for this entire thread. All this stuff is in fact interrelated.
:)
So tell me what is an economy if it isn't based on a bunch of little guys buying, taxes, and a bunch of govenment spending?
I guess there are many underpinnings of "economies" but two very important ones are consumer spending and the spending of tax money. Both those are effected by the masses of little guys who vote and buy products. Computer and car companies spend money to SELL to a bunch of little guys therefor corperate spending is very much impacted by the trends of little guys buying stuff.
So the bottom line with the ".com's" was they were oversold as a concept. Tons of capital evaporated in the quest for the magic ".com" and there wasn't enough buying consumers to justify the expense...and a lot of the .com and .com related companies crashed and burned. Technology stocks took a hit..but the signes were around a year or so prior to the recession. And many other industries were tied to those technology industries...and they took a hit.
Many computer sales were projected based on the magic ".com" revolution. Lots of the components are built in South East Asia..including Taiwan. So when the BIG guys started cutting back on their sales projections, sensing problems with this new "trend", they stopped making orders for hardware, and in some cases stuffed their overseas suppliers. So as that process began to roll, the suppiers (Mostly in Aisa) took the first hit. And then The analysis started..and then the rest happened in a hurry. Simplification? maybe. But not nearly as simplistic as saying something like "the economy did it" Bottom line the economy is always about decisions made by people. In masses. Which is my point for this entire thread. All this stuff is in fact interrelated.
:)
Last edited:
bwalker
LIFETIME SPONSOR
- Jan 10, 2000
- 839
- 0
Sure your not mixing Cummins up with detroit diesel,lol. We have a couple of Cummins 6bt's at work as well as an old L-10 that wont quit. All have been bullet proof. I have a 6bt in my truck as well that I am very happy with. While I dont pretend to know tons about diesels I have been told by a few people in the know that a cat will outlast a Cummins by a slight margine, but the Cummins is way cheaper to rebuild. They also say the Cummins is easier to increase the HP on cheaply.
Finally something I actually know something about! deisels. I think they are all pretty good....as compared to an old International UD series monster! I had 2 Stroke Detriots, (6v53 and 6v92TTA Silver Series) before switching to all NTC series Cummins.....I HATED those Detriots...but they never broke. Bullet Proof for construction stuff. Noisy, Nasty, Leaked (6v53 did, not the 92) And were the antithisys of coolness. My 350 and 400 Cummins experience was very good as well. As was said before cheap to rebuild and cheap to keep. I still have one around for my big "pickup" (an old beatup Ford LTL9000 Dump with 46K rears, 18K front, Cummins NTC400, 13spd, and a 16 ft. box)
All my buds who got into those newer Cat's are lovin' them. BIG power. ANd one of my freinds has absorbed a new 600HP Cummins. I can't even imagin whats thats like. Those Deisel guys are havin' at it and good stuff is happening as a result. Anyone have any experience with those New International deisels? Hear they are obsoleting Cam Shafts.:)
All my buds who got into those newer Cat's are lovin' them. BIG power. ANd one of my freinds has absorbed a new 600HP Cummins. I can't even imagin whats thats like. Those Deisel guys are havin' at it and good stuff is happening as a result. Anyone have any experience with those New International deisels? Hear they are obsoleting Cam Shafts.:)
needsprayer
Member
- Oct 24, 2001
- 109
- 0
weimedog
"So tell me what is an economy if it isn't based on a bunch of little guys buying, taxes, and a bunch of govenment spending? "
.coms produced Busiiness tools that failed. The economy model was not based on the little guy. it was based on an e-commerce business model that relied on "smart tools/products" running on hi-tech platforms (remember the need to change the export laws).
The products did not generate the "promised" added value/profit for the corporations. Immature products deliver immature results.
"So tell me what is an economy if it isn't based on a bunch of little guys buying, taxes, and a bunch of govenment spending? "
.coms produced Busiiness tools that failed. The economy model was not based on the little guy. it was based on an e-commerce business model that relied on "smart tools/products" running on hi-tech platforms (remember the need to change the export laws).
The products did not generate the "promised" added value/profit for the corporations. Immature products deliver immature results.
Milquetoast
Uhhh...
- Oct 30, 2001
- 921
- 0
Wraith, did you throw up yet? Cuz this thread has gone from politics to pony health care and back, and is getting really annoying. Make it stop, for the love of god, please make it stop! :p
Senior KX Rider
Super Power AssClown
- Nov 9, 1999
- 8,577
- 0
Its the thread that will not die.....I threw up a LONG time ago.
Bout time for a mercy killing:p :p
Bout time for a mercy killing:p :p
geremacheks
~SPONSOR~
- Feb 14, 2002
- 484
- 0
I thought I was reading Fortune Magazine, then I got interrupted, and then there was a copy of Horse World in my lap. God, I hope there's a bathroom nearby....
While all you guys are praying to the porcelin god....ask yourself WHY did you return! All you have to do is look at all the other posts for your entertainment....unless this isn't all that bad!
needsprayer, so where do we differ? You assuming that model was only based on the Big corperations? Maybe you better go back and look a little harder. Too me the "little" guys are any company 100 people and under down to individuals like you and me. Most of the big guys already had sophisticated internal networks anyway. And many of the ".coms" were centered on selling to individuals like you and me. We were supposed to want those ".com" services so much we would all go out in mass to Best Buy and buy new faster hardware platforms to handle all the "e-business" we were going to do. AND all those new hi-speed connections would make the communications companies bundles of cash to be spent upgrading their internal networks and hardware....almost worked. My bet is the damn games business has sold more hardware upgrades to the general population than the "e-business" concept. Your argument was based on business tools...well what does that mean? It means the development of business channels, ways to access more customers, and ways to have customers access business easier. The multiplier here is not the individual businesses..its the customers who want to use that means of communication with business. For example an arbitrary example like Ducati...they may buy 50 systems internally and the hardware folks hope that 10,000 motorcycle types buy into the e-business concept of buying motorcycles so they get their statisical numbers. (You know that sales funnel thing...X-number goes in the top and only a percentage are qualified of which only a percentage turn into customers....etc ) The .com model was just as important to the hardware guys hoping the general public would rather go to a keyboard as it was to the ".coms" who wanted to sell a service as it was the companies who wanted to try "e-business" as a way to get to customers...all interrelated. And when the ".com's started getting shaky..it wasn't long before the "HP's" of the world had to adjust because part of there sales projections depended on increased consumer sales heated up by the .com phenominum. And when HP layed off a bunch in Colorado...then the local economy took a hit...and many other itterations across this country.
Bottom line is it was a hyped trend that a few years ago generated tons of investment only to flush and hurt a lot who were knowingly or unknowingly riding those projections.. Back to the trend theme.
needsprayer, so where do we differ? You assuming that model was only based on the Big corperations? Maybe you better go back and look a little harder. Too me the "little" guys are any company 100 people and under down to individuals like you and me. Most of the big guys already had sophisticated internal networks anyway. And many of the ".coms" were centered on selling to individuals like you and me. We were supposed to want those ".com" services so much we would all go out in mass to Best Buy and buy new faster hardware platforms to handle all the "e-business" we were going to do. AND all those new hi-speed connections would make the communications companies bundles of cash to be spent upgrading their internal networks and hardware....almost worked. My bet is the damn games business has sold more hardware upgrades to the general population than the "e-business" concept. Your argument was based on business tools...well what does that mean? It means the development of business channels, ways to access more customers, and ways to have customers access business easier. The multiplier here is not the individual businesses..its the customers who want to use that means of communication with business. For example an arbitrary example like Ducati...they may buy 50 systems internally and the hardware folks hope that 10,000 motorcycle types buy into the e-business concept of buying motorcycles so they get their statisical numbers. (You know that sales funnel thing...X-number goes in the top and only a percentage are qualified of which only a percentage turn into customers....etc ) The .com model was just as important to the hardware guys hoping the general public would rather go to a keyboard as it was to the ".coms" who wanted to sell a service as it was the companies who wanted to try "e-business" as a way to get to customers...all interrelated. And when the ".com's started getting shaky..it wasn't long before the "HP's" of the world had to adjust because part of there sales projections depended on increased consumer sales heated up by the .com phenominum. And when HP layed off a bunch in Colorado...then the local economy took a hit...and many other itterations across this country.
Bottom line is it was a hyped trend that a few years ago generated tons of investment only to flush and hurt a lot who were knowingly or unknowingly riding those projections.. Back to the trend theme.
Last edited:
Milquetoast
Uhhh...
- Oct 30, 2001
- 921
- 0
Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllph! :uh: Oh jeez, see what you made me do?
Senior KX Rider
Super Power AssClown
- Nov 9, 1999
- 8,577
- 0
And for the record.... I am taking great pleasure in pulling the plug.:aj:
- Status
Similar Topics
