🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3plc5f$42g@cc.joensuu.fi>,
Paul Hounsell <hounsell@cc.joensuu.fi> wrote:
>In article <3piads$1la@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>, c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.
>says...
>[...]
>>in a garage" for the computer industry. We *need* all those farmers.
>>and we *need* all the people to build cars. *Some* of them can be replaced
>>by mechanization. But I ask you, "Why aren't they replaced right now?

>     Because the design of cars right now is inefficient, I can easily
>sketch out a design which could be totally produced by machines and over
>a few years it would increase profits. The wiring harness in cars is

Really? Is the auto industry involved in a giant conspiracy put in
place to prevent you from getting your ideas implemented? Should we all
be concerned for our lives now that we know the "truth"?

Granted there is room for improvement. Like the software adage, "For any
program there is always at least one bug and you can always improve
efficiency by at least one instruction." Hence by induction we see that
every program can be reduce to a single machine instruction ... that
won't work.

(For now I will discount inefficiencies created by government mandate.)

>ONE person to oversee the whole operation. Don't forget government has to
>take into account the social consequences of firing thousands of people.

Buzz. Politicians/Government take into account the POLITICAL consequences
of firing thousands of people.

>do not have work. The industrial world could easily get by with 20% of 
>the farmers there are now. If cars were designed to be built by machines

Probably, but It isn't the free market that has created too many farmers.
It is government redistribution of wealth for political reasons.

>     Our (industrial) society is in trouble because it is very quickly
>becoming cheaper to do things with machines than it is with people. This

Industrialization is causing change, but the reason we are in trouble
is out of control government consuming half the GNP year in and year out.
And another problem with the rapid changes is that governments are
preventing people  from adapting. (Or encouraging them not to adapt)

Then the forces of change then break through unexpectedly and with greater
consequences.

>is now and increasing leading to long term or even permanment unemployment.
>What do you do with these people? 

Perhaps this is a difference in world views. I don't *do* things
with people. I don't think of them as objects to "do* things to.

>     We have many inefficiencies in society which could be corrected but
>won't be because of the social consequences. If you don't believe me then
>look at the farm subsidies or continuing fishing in the depleted Alantic.

Buzz. Political consequences.

There are farm subsidies because farmers and related industries have
political clout. The oceans are *somewhat* overfished because
it is a "tragedy of the commons" and assigning property rights will
be difficult technically (though not impossible) and politically hard.

>These are kept going because the social cost is not something the government
>or industry is willing to pay. Pick almost any industrial and you could 

No, Industry will think of economic costs. *Government* thinks
of political costs.

>eliminate at least half the workers and saving money IF you are willing
>to design that industry to do the job with less workers. But what is

Come tell Delco management how they can get by with half the workers.
They'd love to here from you. Hey, put it in the suggestion box.

-rex- (Mourning for all the buggy whip factories)
-- 

Work phone: (317) 451-0358  (8-322-0358)
Internet:   c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com   (Ick. It's suppose to be ahw.)