The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 14 Aug 2007 18:05 On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:47:33 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >Jim Thompson wrote: >> >> This will get the leftists weenies all in a twist and screw up their >> image of me... > > > Screw'em. > > >> The ONLY charity that I give money to is the St. Mary's Food Bank >> Alliance... food and shelter for the homeless, and a Catholic >> organization to boot ;-) > > > SO? You give it to a group that doesn't have a high overhead, and >squeezes every penny. I KNEW that there was some reason why I liked >you. ;-) It's the Scottish ancestry ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
From: Eeyore on 14 Aug 2007 18:40 James Arthur wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > James Arthur wrote: > > > Eeyore wrote: > > > > James Arthur wrote: > > > > > John Larkin wrote: > > > > > > > > Europe looks good, until you consider their demographic time bomb: > > > > > > declining number of workers, increasing retirees, and unfunded > > > > > > retirement comittments: > > > > > > > >http://www.iht.com/articles/1996/01/27/oc.t.php > > > > > > > I personally think that forcing young people to pay for other people's > > > > > parents' retirements is immoral. > > > > > > Even now in many counties, parents have lots of kids to ensure they get taken > > > > care of when they're old. Is that immoral ? > > > > > Certainly not. I think it's wonderful for kids to take care of their > > > parents in old age, but note that this obligation is taken on > > > willingly, out of love for one's parents. > > > > Are you suggesting all kids love their parents ? > > No. > > > And if some didn't, would it be fair that their parents suffered as a result ? > > Yes!! That's feedback--incentive for parents to raise good kids! I reckon it's somewhat presumptive to suggest it's that simple. > Besides, it's a false question--parents should save enough for their > own futures. That was the norm here a few decades ago, but now the > majority, banking blindly on Social Security, feel free to waste their > $$ on nonsense. They trust their retirements to the government, even > though they don't understand it. It's an act of faith. The fallacy > being that Social Security isn't a bank and there isn't anything in > it: it's a pay-as-you-go program. Do they do this ? The idea of relying on the state pension alone even in the UK where it's a fraction more generous is recognised to be a poor choice. A simple improvement would be for the government to run a better pension scheme (preferably with compulsory extra contributions that transalte to a better income in retirement for the better off). And before you say that's the job of private business, I suggest to you that private companies are actually not very good at providing this service. > > > Compelling kids working today to pay for my retirement, by contrast, > > > is another matter. > > > > It boils down to the same thing. > > > I don't see how, but I am mulling John's point--that it's repayment > for education & other benefits reaped. There are all manner of notional 'debts to be repaid' if you want to go down that route. Graham
From: Eeyore on 14 Aug 2007 18:49 Jim Thompson wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > > > >When I was a kid in New Orleans, we had to eat shrimp because meat was > >too expensive. > > > Lobster was originally only fed to prisoners ;-) It's over-rated. Shrimp OTOH are tasty. Graham
From: Eeyore on 14 Aug 2007 18:50 John Larkin wrote: > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > > > > 20 years ago you could find a decent used car for $50. Now, junkers > >are over $1000. > > Anything that's less than 20 years old, and sctually runs, has an > engine control unit, a catalytic converter, a bunch of sensors, and > likely air bags that are worth $1000 in scrap value. > > Besides, a year's insurance will cost a lot more. More than $1000 for insurance ? Graham
From: Michael A. Terrell on 14 Aug 2007 19:18
Bob Myers wrote: > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:46C2074F.FF2CC738(a)earthlink.net... > > 20 years ago you could find a decent used car for $50. Now, junkers > > are over $1000. > > TWENTY years ago? Mike, are you suffering from the same > problem I have - that what you're thinking of as "just 20 years > ago" is more like 30 or 40? I can't imagine what sort of > "decent used car" you would've found for fifty bucks in > 1987, which, believe it er don't, IS now a full twenty years > ago! > > Bob M. They might have a dented fender or bumper, but you could find one without too much trouble. That was in Middletown, Ohio, and yes, 1987, in the months before I moved south. It was a steel town, and lots of older but usable cars were sold by private owners. If they coul;dn't get $50, for it, it went to a junk yard, for $50. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |