Economic Wargames

How many economists with PhDs does it take to do
grammar school algebra?

Unknown, we don’t have enough yet.

             Economic Wargames

The following essay is about the economic system of the
world today. One of my readers who approves of the
contents refers to “economic wargame” as a metaphor.
Much as I appreciate his approval, I disagree that it
is a metaphor. This is the real deal. Let me give you
a metaphorical overview of my presentation.

The global economy is a giant multilevel, multiplayer
chess game. It is however, being played in the dark.
The powers that be, have the overhead lights switched
off. To have any chance you need a flashlight, and that
would still leave the problems of learning the rules and
developing your skills. It seems most people only have
a vague idea that some game is going on. I hope this
essay can be a candle, for ye who curse the darkness.

             NNP = GNP - Dcap

This equation defines the Net National Product (NNP).
It is equated to Gross National Product (GNP) minus
Depreciation of CAPital goods (Dcap). The trouble with
this equation is that depreciation of durable consumer
goods is missing. Random House defines depreciation
thusly:

  1. a decrease in value due to wear and tear, decay,
    decline in price, etc.
  2. U.S. such a decrease as allowed in computing the
    value of property for tax purposes.

The fourth edition of Macroeconomics by Robert J. Barro
of Harvard University defines depreciation as:

The wearing out of CAPITAL goods over time, often
expressed as a fraction of the stock of capital.

When a car rental company buys automobiles, it contri-
butes to the GNP and therefore NNP. The same applies
to cars purchased by consumers. However, as consumer
autos deteriorate over the years the depreciation is
ignored, while that of capital goods is registered on
the income tax forms of businesses. Although
economists have no direct method of obtaining
Depreciation of Consumer goods (Dcon), to pretend it
doesn’t exist when it must be a rather large amount is
absurd. How many billions of dollars worth of cars,
refrigerators, stoves, air-conditioners, etc., etc.
have American consumers trashed since the end of World
War II? So the equation should be:

        NNP = GNP - (Dcap + Dcon)

Our economists are pulling a “Bill Clinton” on us.
Limiting the definition of depreciation in a way that
makes economic losses to the average man disappear
into space. Since economists used to use GNP, now GDP,
to measure economic growth on the grounds that Dcap was
small enough to ignore, including Dcon means they would
have to use Net instead of Gross. Every competent
business man knows it is the Net that really matters not
the Gross. How economists have made this blunder and in-
stitutions of higher learning have taught it for fifty
years is beyond me. I figured this out in 1976 when
they were still using GNP and have yet to hear Net
Domestic Product mentioned on television, that’s why I
still use NNP.

We live in a culture that has used complex machines
for 300 years. The first patent on a steam machine,
number 356, was issued in 1698. Engineers can test,
measure and specify the failure rate of mechanical and
electronic devices. A graph of the failure rate over
time of a machine follows a pattern known as a bathtub
curve.

\ Infant Mortality _-~
\ -~ wear
\ Useful Life _____-~ out
_
----------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ period
MTBF
time ------->

The curve gets its name from the obvious similarity to
the cross-section of a bathtub cut lengthwise up the
middle. It starts with a high failure rate dropping
rapidly to a minimum. This is when the machine is new
and has a high probability of manufacturing defects.
The failures during this time are similar to birth
defects and are also known as infant mortality. The
low point on the curve is where the device is least
unreliable and the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) is
computed. The failure rate remains low for an extended
period then rises quickly when the device begins to
wear out.

So what does the failure rate of machines have to do
with depreciation of durable consumer goods? In
classical economics it is common to assume that
consumers are rational, possibly for simplicity’s
sake. But how can rational decisions be made with
incomplete information? The only consumer products
for which I have ever seen MTBF data are disk drives
for computers. Since computers have been primarily
used in businesses and losing data from hard disks
causes serious problems, supplying reliability data on
hard drives is traditional. Where is the reliability
data on other consumer products? What about cars,
televisions, VCR’s? How are we supposed to make these
rational decisions? The best information I’ve seen is
in Consumer Reports. They show graphs of failure
rates by brand name based on surveys of subscribers.
They do not give break-downs by model within brand and
usually only cover about eight brands of a product
type. Are manufacturers trying to maximize the useful
life of their products? If not, are they engaged in
planned depreciation, usually called planned obsoles-
ence?

In 1937 engineers at Lockheed began designing a new
fighter plane. In January 1939 the first P-38 took to
the air for testing to begin eliminating design
flaws. The P-38 Lightning began service in WWII in
April '42, it had two supercharged 1400 horsepower,
counter rotating engines, a cruising speed of 350 mph,
a maximum of 414 mph and a ceiling of 44,000 feet.
The German’s nicknamed it “The Fork-tailed Devil”. A
squadron of Lightnings shot down Admiral Yamamoto over
the Pacific in 1943.

Another child of Lockheed was conceived in 1958. It
became the SR-71 Blackbird, a spy plane instead of a
war plane. Its maximum speed is still classified but
is acknowledged as being capable of 2350 mph at 80,000
feet.

If engineers were capable of these feats 60 and 40 years
ago, how can yearly variations in machines that roll
along the ground at less than 100 mph possibly be
exciting. Going into debt to buy useless variations
in automobiles is economic insanity. Retooling
factories to make parts that are shaped differently
but not technologically different increases the cost
and therefore the price of consumer products. From
1908 to the early 1920’s the Ford Motor Company made
the same machine, the Model T. When introduced the
Model T sold for $850. By the time it was
discontinued in the early '20’s the price was less
than $300 and 15,000,000 had been manufactured. If
the engineering capability that designed the Lightning
had been combined with manufacturing philosophy that
produced the Model T to manufacture cars in the '50’s,
how good a car, at how low a price could have been
sold by 1960?

In an economic wargame society it is necessary to know
how to keep score and the tactics of the enemy. An
individual’s wealth is indicated by his or her net
worth. Net worth is assets minus liabilities. Assets
are anything which can be assigned a monetary value
that can be realized by selling the item. Liabilities
are debts which have to be paid eventually. So
maximizing assets and minimizing liabilities are basic
objectives. However, all assets are not created
equal. Some assets maintain or even increase their
value over time while others leak like a sieve. If an
asset is so expensive one has to go into debt to
purchase it, then it is important to know how long the
asset lasts; how rapidly it depreciates. Financial
advisors tell us that a home is the most expensive
purchase that most Americans ever make, followed by
automobiles. Hopefully the value of ones home will
increase but the value of a car can only decrease. By
not supplying reliability and durability data on their
products auto makers are leaving consumers in the dark
and engaging in information hiding.

If auto manufacturers produced lower cost, longer
lasting cars by eliminating useless design and brand
variations (Chevys and Pontiacs are both by General
Motors), then the savings on cars could be applied to
home mortgages. A $100,000 mortgage over 30 years at
8% will ultimately cost $264,153.60, that’s $164,153
in interest alone. By paying an additional amount
each month a mortgagee can reduce the total interest
paid and eliminate years of payments.

Regular Payment: $733.76 Total Interest: $164,153.60

…Extra Amount…#…Approx…Total Amount of
…Added Each Pmt…Pmt…Yr…Mo…Interest…Saved
.... 0.00.....360...30...0.....…0.00
…50.00…287…23…11…39,907.13
…100.00…242…20…2…62,458.66
…150.00…212…17…8…77,433.46
…200.00…189…15…9…88,262.94

Paying an extra $200/mo. nearly cuts the time in debt
in half while saving $88,000 in interest. But the
money for that extra payment has to come from
somewhere. Cars and credit cards are two possibilities.

In 1983 I read a letter that a bank sent to its
stockholders. The bank informed its owners that it
encouraged the customers to take as long as possible
to pay back their loans. This will of course maximize
the time over which interest is charged, thereby
maximizing the dividends to the stockholders. My bank
recently sent me a credit card bill of $0.00 even
though it should have been over $100. Their
explanation was:

"There is no minimum payment due because last
month's payment exceeded the minimum payment due.
Your normal payment schedule will resume next
month. Finance charges will continue to accrue if
the new balance is not paid in full by the due
date."

They’re content to charge me interest while “graciously”
allowing me to “save” money by not paying them one
month. Apparently I’m paying them faster than they
would prefer. Making minimum payments on credit cards
means being in debt for years and paying 2 to 3 times
the purchase price for everything bought with the cards.

There is no limit to how dumb consumers are expected
to be, some company named Providian keeps sending me
an application for a Visa “Classic”. It has a $500
limit, 23.99% interest, a $49 application fee, a $59
annual fee and they have the NERVE to say it’s a
limited time offer. It’s the third time I’ve gotten
the offer, I don’t see how it could get worse in the
future. If some fool were to take this offer and make
minimum payments of 3% per month with this interest
rate of 2% per month that would amount to
approximately $180 + $49 + $59 = $288 paid in the
first year and still leave a bill of $440. How many
dummies do they find every month?

Buying “assets” that depreciate rapidly with credit
cards is screwing oneself coming and going, and the
stockholders get to laugh all the way to the bank.

In the mid-1940’s John von Neumann, a Hungarian-American
mathematician, began inventing and applying game
theory to economics. This “game theory” seems to be
stuck in academic never-never land and is rarely
mentioned in the real world. Lester Thurow, an MIT
economist, made implications about it in his book, “The
Zero-Sum Society”. A zero-sum game is one in which
every gain by a “winner” is matched by an equivalent
loss by a “loser”. A bank’s stockholders may be
winners while the credit card customers could be
losers. One man’s liability is another man’s asset.
The global economic wargame is virtually inescapable. If
most worker/consumers don’t know how to keep score it
is a good bet there are going to be a lot of losers.
According to one web site 50% of Americans have a net
worth of less than $10,000. Two independent sources
claim that more than 60% of the people that get bill
consolidation loans to eliminate high interest debt,
proceed to charge up their credit cards again.

The Bible says:

    The rich rule over the poor,
       and the borrower is the slave
          of the lender.
                             Proverbs 22:7

This bluntly states the power that wealth gives to
those who possess it. To increase this power banks
send out millions of “slave” cards anually. The
famous statement, “Freedom requires constant
vigilance” is usually assumed to apply to political
freedom but it is even more applicable to economics.
Having to make rent or mortgage payments every month
and possibly credit card payments means maintaining a
source of income, usually a job. Wargames are
inherently unstable. Companies get bought, companies
go out of business, jobs can be lost.

Our educators constantly talk about preparing students
for the workforce though businessmen regularly
complain about potential employees not being
sufficiently skilled. Our colleges eagerly promote
statistics which indicate that higher education leads
to higher salaries. That’s fine for the income side
of the equation but how much attention is devoted to
the expense side? How many high-school graduates know
what net worth is, or understand amortization
schedules? What good does it do if our educators only
create competent employees who then get fleeced of
their hard earned cash? Or could it be that our
educators are another set of fleecers? I once saw a
TV program which interviewed people who told employers
they had college degrees but had actually lied. Many
of them worked for years, got raises and promotions.
What do you need to know to pretend you have a degree
in psychology, or history, or english literature?
Spend a few months reading some decent books and who’ll
know the difference? Was it 60 Minutes? I can’t
recall. Of course this was years ago and cheap
computers and telecommunication have probably made
verification of education much easier. This may not
work today. Could it be I’m getting too cynical?..
…Nahh!

I’m getting tired of typing so before signing off I’ll
just suggest doing a little web browsing to check
stuff for yourself, like von Neumann and game theory
and P-38 Lightnings. You might check out a few books
too:

Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki
interesting look at the psychology of rich vs poor

Your Money or Your Life
by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin
too pollyannaish but has its priorities straight

The Screwing of the Average Man by David Hapgood
out of print but still locatable

Mastering the Art of War & The Art of War by Sun Tzu
translated & edited Thomas Cleary
wargamers training manual, time tested

So, to misquote that Vulcan that never explained what
it meant to prosper, “Live long and good luck in the
economic wargame”. No, that’s no good, Vulcans don’t
believe in luck. Make that, “Live long and use Sun Tzu
tactics (in the economic wargame)”.

                                       Dal Timgar

If you approve of the contents of this essay, feel
free to copy, email or otherwise distribute.

 The truth is a virus, spread the contagion.

                           dal_timgar@zensearch.net

First one to guess the point wins!

Hell, first one to read the whole damn thing wins!

Believe it or not, I did read the whole thing. A few interesting observations, but mostly disconnected ramblings. But if this is winning, why do I feel so hollow?

I give up, How many Economists does it take?

50+ hits, 4 responses, all somewhat negative

but i notice noone attempted any rational criticism

i’m basically saying our economy runs on planned obsolescence, which amounts to planned depreciation and our economists do not subtract this depreciation from economic growth. our economists are either liars or morons. i’ve e-mailed 300+ economists by now, some famous, only gotten 2 responses. nothing approaching a competent refutation.

i’ve gotten positive responses but i think only cynical rebels LIKE my essay.

Nick: EREHWON
Date/Time: Thursday, June 8, 2000 at 7:17:32 AM IDLW
Subject: Thanks for a truly enjoyable, and educational discertation.

Message:
;You have managed to state in very clear and understandable terms a
fundamental concept of great importance, which is probably why no
economist dare reply! I will forward your essay to two organizations
I feel sure would be willing to publish it. Thanks again.

============================================================
from Steven Schell

Hello. I was enjoying reading your essay, Economic Wargames, posted at Red
Herring, but found it ‘cut-off’ midway. If you could email a copy to me it
would be very much appreciated.

I am a high school economics teacher in Nova Scotia and am always on the
lookout for alternative viewpoints on economic thinking and issues. It is
surprisingly difficult to get a clear picture of how this planet works.

Thanks.

Steve Schell

============================================================
Consumers are idiots, and the consumer culture is degrading our whole =
society. Thanks for the enlightening and informative essay.

Dawn Pisturino
chance@ctaz.com
Interestingly enough, I had made some extra payments on a couple of =
credit cards, and the next month they said I could have a “payment =
holiday.” First time this has happened, so this must be a new strategy =
to keep people in debt.

Yes, I forwarded your essay to other people, but they don’t usually give =
me their opinion.

Best Wishes,

Dawn Pisturino

Planned obsolescene is a well-known, widely understood and easily observable fact of life in capitalist economies. PC retailers often don’t bother with catalogues, as models come out so frequently; for years now stores have run deals where you pay a set fee and every year you can upgrade your computer. My mum gets to replace her company car every three years, at the company’s cost.

So what’s the scoop? If it’s that this isn’t taken into account in economic reporting, well, figures in every country are twisted for a vast number of reasons.

It is striking to any visitor to the US from the UK how few consumer durables are repaired when they fail.

You just buy them use them for a couple of years and when they fail for something minor like a bearing failure the US consumer thinks a couple of years use is fair return and buys another.

The cost and difficulty of obtaining spares IMHO and the seeming cheapness of the new appears to make replacement a better option but of course you always pay just that little bit more for peace of mind.

The biggest product sold is not the purchased item but the finance. There must be millions of people who are earning for more than they did just a few years ago but are hardly any better off for it.

BTW that is one hell of an OP, I think it’s about bedtime now, g’night!

the only serious response that might be called a rebuttal is by mattk. “planned obsolesence is well known, commonly understood and easily observable”

i’ve talked to a woman in her 30’s who said she had never heard the phrase. when was the last time you saw/heard it mentioned in the media? it disappeared in the 60’s as far as i can tell. if it is so well known, why isn’t it mentioned in economics books? i have a dozen at home and the only one that mentions it is THE SCREWING OF THE AVERAGE MAN from 1974.

i agree it is easilly observable in automobiles but not necessarily electronics. in 1980 IBM introduced the Datamaster 23. they never talked about benchmarks but even i was surprised when i wrote my own programs to test it and it was half as fast as the machine it replaced.

do you think the depreciation of consumer goods, that economists never mention, should be subtracted in calculating NDP as i point out?

                                            Dal Timgar

Sorry, dal_timgar, but that’s not really a convincing amount of evidence. I put planned obsolescence into a search engine (Fast Search) and received 2,825 responses, including “planned obsolescence in advertising”, “planned obsolescence as an engine of technological progress” and “is planned obsolescence socially responsible?” in the first ten hits.

Maybe it’s not in the media much because it’s taken for granted by most economists – I haven’t heard “laissez-faire economics” mentioned on the news lately either, but that’s sure as hell out there.

I’m afraid I can’t agree or disagree with your calculations – my experience is on a more abstract level.

near the new year someone asked on a website what changes would people like to see in the world. i suggested eliminate planned obsolescence. someone responded great idea, then talked about what effects it might have. then a woman asked “what is planned obsolescence?” you don’t suppose knowing about planned obsolescence is a MAN THING do you? LOL!

one thing about searching the internet, you have to know about it to search for it. and if planned obsolescence is as WELL KNOWN as you imply, doesn’t that number seem kind of low?

other stats:

gross domestic product 82,854
Karl Marx 75,948
Adam Smith 52,663
net domestic product 650

net domestic product is REAL LOW. looks like economists are really uninterested in talking about DEPRECIATION. wonder why? the equation NDP = GNP - Dcap is just about the 1st one you encounter in economics, then NDP disappears from sight.

                                              Dal Timgar

I doubt everyone knows it’s called planned obsolescence. My mother upgrades gets her company car upgraded every few years – she knows it’s because the manufacturers plan for it and build strategies around it, but I wouldn’t expect her to know it’s called “planned obsolescence”. I think you’d be surprised at the number of people who would understand the concept, if not the label, and would be able to give you examples of it in their own lives.

Yes, statistics lie. But for a fairly specific phrase I think nearly 3,000 responses is an indicator that it’s a known concept. After all, how many people would you expect to know “laissez-faire” or “Keynesian monetarism”?

So you’re planning to make “planned obsolescence” obsolete?

I disagree that things are planned to become trash. Just look how much more reliable autos and consumer electronics are than they were 25 years ago.

And why isn’t “planned obsolescence as an engine of technological progress” valid? (Thanks, Matt) Just think if everything you owned was the first iteration. Hell, our TV’s would still have mechanical tuners and we’d be pounding manual typwriters. There’d be no IBM Selectrics or digital station tuning.

Well, I’m an economist. I’ll answer your questions.

Yes, depreciation of consumer durables is important.

The reason it would be a foolish idea to eliminate planned obsolescence is that it costs a lot more to make things last longer, and cosumerers usually aren’t willing to pay the extra.

Take that special paper for archiving material - you don’t see a lot of it about because it osts more and most people don’t think it’s worth it.

Now the statistic. Yes GNP or GDP or whatever has problems. There are lots of things that don’t enter the measure properly.

For example:

  • value of household services (housework, odd jobs around the house).

  • car accidents involve fixing the car which makes GNP go up, which can’t be right.

etc etc.

The point is that it is a lousy measure, but the best available.

Your example is simple to deal with. Depreciation of consumer durables is not accounted for because the long term benefits of consumer durables is not accounted for.

In national income accounting, the value of a washing machine is counted as all being in one year (which is incidentally, like assuming 100% depreciation, an overestimate).

Typically the only attempt to account for the time benefits of consumer items is the imputed rent of owner-occupied dwellings. This is because the benefits are very long term and a market rent measure for reliable estrimation is readily available (ie what do other houses in this suburb rent for?).

Consumer durables are excluded (as noted above, the error is in the opposite direction to which you mention) because they are hard to estimate and the size of the net benefits probably doesnm’t change that much from year to year. This means that the number doesn’t measure national welfare that well, but changes in the number track changes in national welfare quite well.

picmr

>eliminate planned obsolescence

>So you’re planning to make “planned obsolescence” obsolete?

no i’m just telling the world that economists are incompetent at grammar school algebra and this just happens to cover up planned obsolescence.

>I disagree that things are planned to become trash. Just >look how much more reliable autos and consumer electronics >are than they were 25 years ago. And why isn’t “planned >obsolescence as an engine of technological progress” valid? >(Thanks, Matt) Just think if everything you owned was the >first iteration. Hell, our TV’s would still have >mechanical tuners and we’d be pounding manual typwriters. >There’d be no IBM Selectrics or digital station tuning.

cars are garbage, we could have had stainless steel bodies decades ago. we’ve had planes flying across the country at 600 mph since the 60’s, the laws of physics don’t change style from year to year. we’re paying for useless retooling. cars are mechanical engineering, electrical engineering has actually been advancing significantly in the
last 50 years. but i have an Accuphase E-202 integrated amplifier which is 20 years old that is better constructed than most of the crap you can buy today, wonder what it would cost without STYLING changes over the last 20 years.
> by UncleBeer


>picmr

>Well, I’m an economist. I’ll answer your questions.

at last, AN ECONOMIST, we’re saved from the dreadful clutches of Dal Timgar. ROFL!

>Yes, depreciation of consumer durables is important.

OH REALLY? use a search engine to find “depreciation of consumer goods” and see what turns up. what economics book talks about it?

>The reason it would be a foolish idea to eliminate planned >obsolescence is that it costs a lot more to make things >last longer, and cosumerers usually aren’t willing to pay >the extra. Take that special paper for archiving material >- you don’t see a lot of it about because it osts more and >most people don’t think it’s worth it.

oh yes economists have handed me this line before, and of course you can find examples where it is true. funny, these economists don’t talk about the wasted expense of useless styling changes. eliminate the useless changes and put the savings into construction quality and amortize it over
years. i bet we could make cars last 3 times as long and sell them at 2/3rds the price and be functionally superior. think of how much replacement parts would cost. people might not steal cars just to strip them for parts.

>Now the statistic.

>Yes GNP or GDP or whatever has problems. There are lots of >things that don’t enter the measure properly.

i’m not talking about your GDP problems. i’m talking about subtracting depreciation of durable consumer goods FROM GDP to compute NDP.

>For example:

>- value of household services (housework, odd jobs around the house).

totally irrelevant to my discussion

>- car accidents involve fixing the car which makes GNP go >up, which can’t be right.

totally irrelevant to my discussion

>etc etc.

totally irrelevant to my discussion

>The point is that it is a lousy measure, but the best >available.

totally irrelevant to my discussion

>Your example is simple to deal with. Depreciation of >consumer durables is not accounted for because the long >term benefits of consumer durables is not accounted for.

>In national income accounting, the value of a washing >machine is counted as all being in one year (which is >incidentally, like assuming 100% depreciation, an >overestimate

the depreciation isn’t being subtracted anywhere i’ve seen. why isn’t it subtracted from GDP just like depreciation of CAPITAL GOODS?

>Typically the only attempt to account for the time benefits >of consumer items is the imputed rent of owner-occupied >dwellings. This is because the benefits are very long term >and a market rent measure for reliable estrimation is >readily available (ie what do other houses in this suburb
>rent for?).

if you read my essay, i talked about real estate. i said eliminate planned obsolescence so people can pay off mortgages and don’t have to PAY RENT.

>Consumer durables are excluded (as noted above, the error >is in the opposite direction to which you mention) because >they are hard to estimate and the size of the net benefits >probably doesnm’t change that much from year to year. This >means that the number doesn’t measure national welfare that >well, but changes in the number track changes in
>national welfare quite well.

oh yes, another economist said the data was hard to collect. EVER HEARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES? couldn’t you analyze their data to know how quickly cars depreciate?

> by picmr

another ECONOMIST bites the dust. since we are talking about GRAMMAR SCHOOL ALGEBRA, how did you do on the math section of the SAT? i took it twice back in 1969. scored 711 and 715. but my major was electrical engineering. dropped out tho, didn’t care what some old greeks said
about anything. got a job where they paid me to mess with electronics 8 hours a day. seen a lot of planned obsolescence in crap not worth buying in 27 years. noticed that missing depreciation of consumer goods in '76. with all this talk of globalization and NEW ECONOMY, thought it would be nice if everybody knew about it.
Dal Timgar

dal_timgar: if you use the UBB quote function to quote someone else’s text, it will make it much easier for people to follow what you are saying. Just surround the quoted text with {quote} and {/quote} , only replace the curly braces with square ones: “[” and “]” More info on Vb coding can be found here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php?action=bbcode

Stainless steel cars? You’re joking right? That was tried once and was a dismal failure mainly because of the public didn’t want them. Why didn’t they want them? They were damned expensive. Not to mention, butt ugly. How’d you like to be drive a DeLorean for the rest of your life?

I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make by bringing up planes and physics. Are you trying to say that we should all be driving 600 mph skycars?

Why is retooling useless? Cars are far safer than they were years ago. Are you suggesting that we should all be driving autos with steel dashboard and rigid steering columns? Are you suggesting we should all be driving inefficient cars that get about 12 to 15 MPG? How about the number of people kept employed by changing styles? Isn’t this of some benefit to society? And how about reliabilty? You can’t seriously believe cars are less reliable now than they were 50, or even 20 years ago.

Are you seriously claiming that mechanical engineering hasn’t advanced in 50 years? As a degreed mechanical engineer, I’m gotta vehemently dispute that assinine assertion. How do you think those modern cars have become safer? It’s through the better management of energy absorbtion allowed by those advances in mechanical engineering. How about the increases in fuel efficiency? Also helped along by advances in mechanical engineering. Again, the greater reliablility of today’s autos is in part dependent upon advances in mechanical engineering. Hell, 50 years ago we were just beginning to standardize threaded fastener sizes.

I have here on my desk two copies of Machinery’s Handbook. One is the 12th edition published in 1942. The other is the 25th edition published in 1996. Maybe you can explain to me why the older one is only about 2000 pages while the newer one is closer to 2600. But now I really begin to see just how pervasive the ‘planned obsolescence’ conspiracy is. The engineers and editors actually censored the available information back in 1942 so 50 or 60 years later I’d have to buy another edition, rather than being able to rely on the one my grandfather gave me.

Actually, I have one myself. I’m taking the X-Men entrance exam next week.
. . .oh, on cars. I get it.
So, Dal, everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who can’t manage algebra? Welcome to Great Debates, looks like you’ll fit right in. :rolleyes:

And a 715 math SAT? Piffle. Firstly, big deal. I can name a dozen people off the top of my head who scored higher. Secondly, test scores hardly add authority to one’s argument. For that matter, insulting the people who are attempting to respond reasonably to your essay also adds nothing to your argument.

@unclebeer

in my OP i talked about the P-38 lightning, i was using that as an example of 1939 mechanical engineering. is STANDARDIZING FASTENERS a matter of mechanical engineering or corporate politics? actually i want a 4 door hatch-back with a stainless steel body. i regard mechanical engineering as applied physics, since the laws of physics don’t change style, human beings don’t change shape, and the roads and highways don’t change, once an excellent design is created except for minor changes i see not point in redesign. suppose this theoretical machine had been designed in 1955, obviously it would not have a microprocessor controlled electronic ignition system. the 1990 model would but the body and tail lights could all be the same shape. i haven’t been to an auto show since '66, i have only owned used cars. i drive a '91 hyundai excel. i think it is a piece of sh!t, but then i think all cars are sh!t so i minimize depreciation. as for employment, there is no question planned obsolescence creates useless work, the question becomes, WHY DO WE NEED THE USELESS WORK? why are some human beings paying other human beings to live on a planet created by no human beings. HEY! i said it was an ECONOMIC WARGAME. the ECONOMIC WARGAME is a continuation of the MILITARY WARGAME by other means.

i’m sure there have been improvements in mechanical engineering in the last 55 years. compare them to the changes in electronics over the same period. what is the percentage of improvements in cars compared to the number of useless variations? why don’t economists tell us how much americans have lost on depreciation of automobiles since 1945. i found a website that that says the loss on a car is 25-45% in the 1st year, then 7-10% in the 2nd year, then straight line to 0% over the next 10 years, with the car lasting 12 years 128,000 miles. this could amount to 50% loss in first 3 years and the auto industry wants us to trade cars in every 3 years. the book THE MILLIONAIRE NEXT DOOR says that 36% of millionaire buy USED CARS. i guess some millionaires aren’t as dumb as most americans are supposed to be.

@Andros

did i insult somebody? he said he was an ECONOMIST and would answer our questions. what answers did he provide?
i don’t doubt that there are people that beat my SAT scores, i’m sure i’ve met some. i would be curious to know how many of them are economists. but i still say it’s just GRAMMAR SCHOOL ALGEBRA.

                                              Dal Timgar

Just who is “we”? Do you own some automotive company?

If you feel that you have a viable business plan here, and that you have your finger on what the public wants and needs, then get yourself some investors and get to building so you can prove yourself right. I, on the other hand, will make a side bet with you for $500 that you will be out of business in 3 years because people will hate your cars.