[DWCAP]

Maybe I missed something in that article, but I see two really glairing problems with this idea, other than the fact that it is so irresponsible and cruel.

1) This would depress sales, not increase them. The closer and closer to the “hat picking date” more and more stores would demand credit/check/or debt payments and not cash. Hell a few weeks before they wouldnt accept cash at all. But consumers would be DEMANDING to pay in cash, cause they would want to get rid of it. Sales would plumet, or prices skyrocket by 10% plus. Vending machines would all suddenly be “out of service”. Those terrible ‘pay day loan’ places would be screwed as no one would want cash (maybe a fringe benifit???)
It would fall terribly hard on the poorest people, who use cash because they are terrible credit risks and dont have enough money for legit bank accounts. How would kids/teens get payed or pay for stuff? There is a bill now to outlaw them having a credit card in the Senate. So they wouldnt be able to avoid the financial losses as we would, and believe it or not they spend alot of money. (movies, clothes, junk food, etc) It would be crazyness.

2) To avoid the above crazyness, most people would just deposit most of their cash money in the banks. I could deposit $100 the day before the devaluation, the bank would loose $10 per deposit overall, but would still owe me $100 the day after. It would wipe out the banks capital ratio’s, atleast the ones linked to hard cash in their vaults. And arnt we spending trillions to shore up the banks already? So maybe the banks only loose a few billion, how many people think they can withstand that kinda loss in 1 day?

I just dont see how this is a good idea at all, unless you put your time interval for evalation to end like a month before all hell broke loose.

[DWCAP]

Maybe I missed something in that article, but I see two really glairing problems with this idea, other than the fact that it is so irresponsible and cruel.

1) This would depress sales, not increase them. The closer and closer to the “hat picking date” more and more stores would demand credit/check/or debt payments and not cash. Hell a few weeks before they wouldnt accept cash at all. But consumers would be DEMANDING to pay in cash, cause they would want to get rid of it. Sales would plumet, or prices skyrocket by 10% plus. Vending machines would all suddenly be “out of service”. Those terrible ‘pay day loan’ places would be screwed as no one would want cash (maybe a fringe benifit???)
It would fall terribly hard on the poorest people, who use cash because they are terrible credit risks and dont have enough money for legit bank accounts. How would kids/teens get payed or pay for stuff? There is a bill now to outlaw them having a credit card in the Senate. So they wouldnt be able to avoid the financial losses as we would, and believe it or not they spend alot of money. (movies, clothes, junk food, etc) It would be crazyness.

2) To avoid the above crazyness, most people would just deposit most of their cash money in the banks. I could deposit $100 the day before the devaluation, the bank would loose $10 per deposit overall, but would still owe me $100 the day after. It would wipe out the banks capital ratio’s, atleast the ones linked to hard cash in their vaults. And arnt we spending trillions to shore up the banks already? So maybe the banks only loose a few billion, how many people think they can withstand that kinda loss in 1 day?

I just dont see how this is a good idea at all, unless you put your time interval for evalation to end like a month before all hell broke loose.

[DWCAP]

despite the fact that that piece is obviously a smear campain against democrats, and just happens to leave out all the BS of the republicans (ie Bush touting the homeownership rate increases as a good thing that HE did); you are right that it does bring up some interesting points. So many chances to avoid this crap, and yet “no one saw it coming!”

I would just love for someone to invite Frank onto their show, play that clip of him saying they are fundamently sound and even if they are not, it isnt the GOV problem, and see what he says. The political “doublt talk” around this issue is just astounding, even from Washington standards.

[DWCAP]

despite the fact that that piece is obviously a smear campain against democrats, and just happens to leave out all the BS of the republicans (ie Bush touting the homeownership rate increases as a good thing that HE did); you are right that it does bring up some interesting points. So many chances to avoid this crap, and yet “no one saw it coming!”

I would just love for someone to invite Frank onto their show, play that clip of him saying they are fundamently sound and even if they are not, it isnt the GOV problem, and see what he says. The political “doublt talk” around this issue is just astounding, even from Washington standards.

[DWCAP]

despite the fact that that piece is obviously a smear campain against democrats, and just happens to leave out all the BS of the republicans (ie Bush touting the homeownership rate increases as a good thing that HE did); you are right that it does bring up some interesting points. So many chances to avoid this crap, and yet “no one saw it coming!”

I would just love for someone to invite Frank onto their show, play that clip of him saying they are fundamently sound and even if they are not, it isnt the GOV problem, and see what he says. The political “doublt talk” around this issue is just astounding, even from Washington standards.

[DWCAP]

despite the fact that that piece is obviously a smear campain against democrats, and just happens to leave out all the BS of the republicans (ie Bush touting the homeownership rate increases as a good thing that HE did); you are right that it does bring up some interesting points. So many chances to avoid this crap, and yet “no one saw it coming!”

I would just love for someone to invite Frank onto their show, play that clip of him saying they are fundamently sound and even if they are not, it isnt the GOV problem, and see what he says. The political “doublt talk” around this issue is just astounding, even from Washington standards.

[DWCAP]

despite the fact that that piece is obviously a smear campain against democrats, and just happens to leave out all the BS of the republicans (ie Bush touting the homeownership rate increases as a good thing that HE did); you are right that it does bring up some interesting points. So many chances to avoid this crap, and yet “no one saw it coming!”

I would just love for someone to invite Frank onto their show, play that clip of him saying they are fundamently sound and even if they are not, it isnt the GOV problem, and see what he says. The political “doublt talk” around this issue is just astounding, even from Washington standards.

[DWCAP]

[quote=flu]
Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones.[/quote]

I find the above to be questionable evidence in support of bigger cars are safer. Yes, smaller cars are involved in more accidents than larger cars, most likley due to the nature of those who drive smaller cars. Most smaller cars are marketed to younger drivers, and those drivers are more likly to get in an accident than older drivers, regardless of the vehicle they are in. If they told me that that the above was true for drivers between 16-24, that would be better evidence that the larger cars are infact safer, and I would appologize for my mistake of being incorrect.

The physics is unassiable. Being in a bigger car is safer than a smaller car when slammed into something. You have a greater force, and will move the other object more than you will move. This is better for big cars and worse for the small cars. Simple as that. It is kinda hard to disagree with this point.

However the physics is also on the side of the small car in stopping distance. A lighter car will have less mass, as is agreed then less force to stop, and will need less room to stop. So, a small car could avoid certain situtations that a larger vehicle could not. Nearly all the accidents I have been in anyway involved in or near or know of involved a breaking car unable to stop in the space allowed. I mean seriously, how often do people strap in and drive the wrong way on the freeway or something similar that would recreate this kinda carnage? I guess surface street driving could lead to something akin to this, but only if people are doing something illegal like running red lights or speeding and swerving across lanes like what happened up on the 79 where two racing cars killed a young mom. At that point we come back to the problem being the driver and not the vehicle.

But, just to be clear, I fully agree with the mountain of evidence that if you want to slam into something at a high rate of speed, bigger is better.

[DWCAP]

[quote=flu]
Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones.[/quote]

I find the above to be questionable evidence in support of bigger cars are safer. Yes, smaller cars are involved in more accidents than larger cars, most likley due to the nature of those who drive smaller cars. Most smaller cars are marketed to younger drivers, and those drivers are more likly to get in an accident than older drivers, regardless of the vehicle they are in. If they told me that that the above was true for drivers between 16-24, that would be better evidence that the larger cars are infact safer, and I would appologize for my mistake of being incorrect.

The physics is unassiable. Being in a bigger car is safer than a smaller car when slammed into something. You have a greater force, and will move the other object more than you will move. This is better for big cars and worse for the small cars. Simple as that. It is kinda hard to disagree with this point.

However the physics is also on the side of the small car in stopping distance. A lighter car will have less mass, as is agreed then less force to stop, and will need less room to stop. So, a small car could avoid certain situtations that a larger vehicle could not. Nearly all the accidents I have been in anyway involved in or near or know of involved a breaking car unable to stop in the space allowed. I mean seriously, how often do people strap in and drive the wrong way on the freeway or something similar that would recreate this kinda carnage? I guess surface street driving could lead to something akin to this, but only if people are doing something illegal like running red lights or speeding and swerving across lanes like what happened up on the 79 where two racing cars killed a young mom. At that point we come back to the problem being the driver and not the vehicle.

But, just to be clear, I fully agree with the mountain of evidence that if you want to slam into something at a high rate of speed, bigger is better.

[DWCAP]

[quote=flu]
Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones.[/quote]

I find the above to be questionable evidence in support of bigger cars are safer. Yes, smaller cars are involved in more accidents than larger cars, most likley due to the nature of those who drive smaller cars. Most smaller cars are marketed to younger drivers, and those drivers are more likly to get in an accident than older drivers, regardless of the vehicle they are in. If they told me that that the above was true for drivers between 16-24, that would be better evidence that the larger cars are infact safer, and I would appologize for my mistake of being incorrect.

The physics is unassiable. Being in a bigger car is safer than a smaller car when slammed into something. You have a greater force, and will move the other object more than you will move. This is better for big cars and worse for the small cars. Simple as that. It is kinda hard to disagree with this point.

However the physics is also on the side of the small car in stopping distance. A lighter car will have less mass, as is agreed then less force to stop, and will need less room to stop. So, a small car could avoid certain situtations that a larger vehicle could not. Nearly all the accidents I have been in anyway involved in or near or know of involved a breaking car unable to stop in the space allowed. I mean seriously, how often do people strap in and drive the wrong way on the freeway or something similar that would recreate this kinda carnage? I guess surface street driving could lead to something akin to this, but only if people are doing something illegal like running red lights or speeding and swerving across lanes like what happened up on the 79 where two racing cars killed a young mom. At that point we come back to the problem being the driver and not the vehicle.

But, just to be clear, I fully agree with the mountain of evidence that if you want to slam into something at a high rate of speed, bigger is better.

[DWCAP]

[quote=flu]
Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones.[/quote]

I find the above to be questionable evidence in support of bigger cars are safer. Yes, smaller cars are involved in more accidents than larger cars, most likley due to the nature of those who drive smaller cars. Most smaller cars are marketed to younger drivers, and those drivers are more likly to get in an accident than older drivers, regardless of the vehicle they are in. If they told me that that the above was true for drivers between 16-24, that would be better evidence that the larger cars are infact safer, and I would appologize for my mistake of being incorrect.

The physics is unassiable. Being in a bigger car is safer than a smaller car when slammed into something. You have a greater force, and will move the other object more than you will move. This is better for big cars and worse for the small cars. Simple as that. It is kinda hard to disagree with this point.

However the physics is also on the side of the small car in stopping distance. A lighter car will have less mass, as is agreed then less force to stop, and will need less room to stop. So, a small car could avoid certain situtations that a larger vehicle could not. Nearly all the accidents I have been in anyway involved in or near or know of involved a breaking car unable to stop in the space allowed. I mean seriously, how often do people strap in and drive the wrong way on the freeway or something similar that would recreate this kinda carnage? I guess surface street driving could lead to something akin to this, but only if people are doing something illegal like running red lights or speeding and swerving across lanes like what happened up on the 79 where two racing cars killed a young mom. At that point we come back to the problem being the driver and not the vehicle.

But, just to be clear, I fully agree with the mountain of evidence that if you want to slam into something at a high rate of speed, bigger is better.

[DWCAP]

[quote=flu]
Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones.[/quote]

I find the above to be questionable evidence in support of bigger cars are safer. Yes, smaller cars are involved in more accidents than larger cars, most likley due to the nature of those who drive smaller cars. Most smaller cars are marketed to younger drivers, and those drivers are more likly to get in an accident than older drivers, regardless of the vehicle they are in. If they told me that that the above was true for drivers between 16-24, that would be better evidence that the larger cars are infact safer, and I would appologize for my mistake of being incorrect.

The physics is unassiable. Being in a bigger car is safer than a smaller car when slammed into something. You have a greater force, and will move the other object more than you will move. This is better for big cars and worse for the small cars. Simple as that. It is kinda hard to disagree with this point.

However the physics is also on the side of the small car in stopping distance. A lighter car will have less mass, as is agreed then less force to stop, and will need less room to stop. So, a small car could avoid certain situtations that a larger vehicle could not. Nearly all the accidents I have been in anyway involved in or near or know of involved a breaking car unable to stop in the space allowed. I mean seriously, how often do people strap in and drive the wrong way on the freeway or something similar that would recreate this kinda carnage? I guess surface street driving could lead to something akin to this, but only if people are doing something illegal like running red lights or speeding and swerving across lanes like what happened up on the 79 where two racing cars killed a young mom. At that point we come back to the problem being the driver and not the vehicle.

But, just to be clear, I fully agree with the mountain of evidence that if you want to slam into something at a high rate of speed, bigger is better.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Diego Mamani][quote=DWCAP]Considering China’s current track record I wouldnt be too worried about China taking over everything like they seem to be planning. Their food sucks, their drugs suck, their toys suck, their high tech sucks or is just a ripoff that would be sued so fast it wouldnt be funny. China is good at making lots of cheap stuff that is disposable. Itll break in a year, but who cares it was dirt cheap and served its purpose. This will not bode will for a large purchase like a car, not matter how ambishious their buisness men are.[/quote]

What you wrote was also true of Japan and Japanese products in the 1950s and 1960s. We know how that turned out in the end…[/quote]

True, but people are now talking about the Chinese as they did about the Japanese in the 80’s; and look how that turned out in the end. (Turning Japanesia…)

In all reality they are not gonna take over the world like some seem to think, and they are not gonna remain the backwater of manufacturing and industry they were up until the 1990’s. They will most likly build a world wide car company or two, just like we have Ford and GM, Germany has BMW, porsche and VW, Italy has its luxery models, India is growing tata, Japan has Toyota and Honda, Korea has kia……..

They will grow or buy their way up to compete with the big dogs of the industry and crowd out the little guys (like chrysler) alittle more. Every country has its growth spurt onto the world stage, and every one eventually sucumbs to the internal pressures unique to that country before it takes over everything. Japan did it in the 70’s and 80’s. We did it before that. China is now, then India is next in my opnion.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Diego Mamani][quote=DWCAP]Considering China’s current track record I wouldnt be too worried about China taking over everything like they seem to be planning. Their food sucks, their drugs suck, their toys suck, their high tech sucks or is just a ripoff that would be sued so fast it wouldnt be funny. China is good at making lots of cheap stuff that is disposable. Itll break in a year, but who cares it was dirt cheap and served its purpose. This will not bode will for a large purchase like a car, not matter how ambishious their buisness men are.[/quote]

What you wrote was also true of Japan and Japanese products in the 1950s and 1960s. We know how that turned out in the end…[/quote]

True, but people are now talking about the Chinese as they did about the Japanese in the 80’s; and look how that turned out in the end. (Turning Japanesia…)

In all reality they are not gonna take over the world like some seem to think, and they are not gonna remain the backwater of manufacturing and industry they were up until the 1990’s. They will most likly build a world wide car company or two, just like we have Ford and GM, Germany has BMW, porsche and VW, Italy has its luxery models, India is growing tata, Japan has Toyota and Honda, Korea has kia……..

They will grow or buy their way up to compete with the big dogs of the industry and crowd out the little guys (like chrysler) alittle more. Every country has its growth spurt onto the world stage, and every one eventually sucumbs to the internal pressures unique to that country before it takes over everything. Japan did it in the 70’s and 80’s. We did it before that. China is now, then India is next in my opnion.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Diego Mamani][quote=DWCAP]Considering China’s current track record I wouldnt be too worried about China taking over everything like they seem to be planning. Their food sucks, their drugs suck, their toys suck, their high tech sucks or is just a ripoff that would be sued so fast it wouldnt be funny. China is good at making lots of cheap stuff that is disposable. Itll break in a year, but who cares it was dirt cheap and served its purpose. This will not bode will for a large purchase like a car, not matter how ambishious their buisness men are.[/quote]

What you wrote was also true of Japan and Japanese products in the 1950s and 1960s. We know how that turned out in the end…[/quote]

True, but people are now talking about the Chinese as they did about the Japanese in the 80’s; and look how that turned out in the end. (Turning Japanesia…)

In all reality they are not gonna take over the world like some seem to think, and they are not gonna remain the backwater of manufacturing and industry they were up until the 1990’s. They will most likly build a world wide car company or two, just like we have Ford and GM, Germany has BMW, porsche and VW, Italy has its luxery models, India is growing tata, Japan has Toyota and Honda, Korea has kia……..

They will grow or buy their way up to compete with the big dogs of the industry and crowd out the little guys (like chrysler) alittle more. Every country has its growth spurt onto the world stage, and every one eventually sucumbs to the internal pressures unique to that country before it takes over everything. Japan did it in the 70’s and 80’s. We did it before that. China is now, then India is next in my opnion.

[Author]

Posts