|
Durin
Oct 21, 2009, 6:12 AM
Post #1 of 52
(6134 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2007
Posts: 113
|
Since both of their founders have passed away, does anyone know what the future entails for these companies?
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
Oct 21, 2009, 8:58 AM
Post #2 of 52
(6077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
Durin wrote: Since both of their founders have passed away, does anyone know what the future entails for these companies? Don't know, but I do hope that in future we can work out some nice relationship between RC.comers and CCH, for the good of all of us. I hope Nadia would be willing to listen to us. Respectfully Voytek Renn Alien user.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Oct 21, 2009, 11:11 AM
Post #3 of 52
(6050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
If I'm not mistaken, neither of these companies were large enough to be public. It all depends on whether family members want to take things further or not. My wild guesses would be that Acopa will sell out their stock and quit unless one of their current employees buys it. CCH is more tricky. Remember, the cam design is for sale but if production is taken outside of the Laramie bubble, the cam is likely to cost $120-$130 apiece. This is what has halted their sale, not stubbornness on Dave's behalf. In 1999 when I was working at CCH and a total n00b climber, he turned everything off at 3:00 and said he had an appointment. I called a friend and told him we should go to Vedauwoo. We went there and I redpointed "Friday the 13th" for my first time. While I'm setting up the anchor I looked down and saw Dave walk up. I guess we had the same appointment. You should have seen the looks he gave me when I told him how much I'd been in the weight room to prepare for my first Indian Creek trip. In both cases, I'll miss the man more than their product.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 21, 2009, 12:18 PM
Post #4 of 52
(6009 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
angry wrote: CCH is more tricky. Remember, the cam design is for sale but if production is taken outside of the Laramie bubble, the cam is likely to cost $120-$130 apiece. This is what has halted their sale, not stubbornness on Dave's behalf. Why is that?
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Oct 21, 2009, 1:25 PM
Post #5 of 52
(5973 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
The labor's cheap. Mind you, most of his workers are complete dirtbags who don't mind the low pay. The internal cam spring thing (which keeps aliens so narrow) is very labor intensive and accounting for that would drive up production costs. The only way to get away with it is to pay minimum wage, which simply wouldn't be possible in a larger shop like BD or Metolius.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Oct 21, 2009, 1:46 PM
Post #6 of 52
(5949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
angry wrote: You should have seen the looks he gave me when I told him how much I'd been in the weight room to prepare for my first Indian Creek trip. In both cases, I'll miss the man more than their product. Great line. I'll have to remark on hitting the weights before climbing sometime. Maybe I'll save it for when I climb with JT512. Yes. Hopefully, Aliens will remain with us. I'd hate to see that increase on the $ though.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 21, 2009, 2:13 PM
Post #7 of 52
(5923 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
Isn't the black diamond shop in China?
|
|
|
|
|
adam3
Oct 21, 2009, 2:22 PM
Post #8 of 52
(5912 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2007
Posts: 98
|
Utah.. but they do get little things here and there made out of China like everyone else..
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Oct 21, 2009, 2:36 PM
Post #9 of 52
(5898 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
adam3 wrote: Utah.. but they do get little things here and there made out of China like everyone else.. Really? Cost of living is too high in the States to do a lot of manufacturing. Downside to the must-grow-at-all-costs ideal of economics is that as the profits grow, so too do the prices of goods and services and therefore the cost of living. Manufacturing at minimum wage in the states is basically unheard of.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 21, 2009, 3:01 PM
Post #12 of 52
(5860 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Oct 21, 2009, 3:09 PM
Post #13 of 52
(5846 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
Acopa is a fairly successful Mexican company that's been producing shoes and selling them in Mexico for years. They seem to want to continue that. The US distributor is the question mark. Aliens? I love 'em, but is there enough in them to bother with?
In reply to: ... Downside to the must-grow-at-all-costs ideal of economics is that as the profits grow, so too do the prices of goods and services and therefore the cost of living. There's no particular link between profits & prices. Profits can increase by selling more units, with no change in prices. Prices can increase with no change in profits by maintaining margin in the face of increases in input costs. Where did you hear of a "growth at all costs" ideal in economics?
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 21, 2009, 3:20 PM
Post #14 of 52
(5829 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
Acopa is an American company based in Las Vegas with a factory in Mexico. They bought an existing factory in 2003 but I wouldn't call the current form of Acopa a Mexican company. I don't think US distribution is an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
TarHeelEMT
Oct 21, 2009, 3:27 PM
Post #15 of 52
(5823 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 20, 2009
Posts: 724
|
Am I correct in that Aliens are generally unavailable at the moment?
|
|
|
|
|
naitch
Oct 21, 2009, 4:12 PM
Post #16 of 52
(5769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2002
Posts: 539
|
hafilax wrote: Acopa is an American company based in Las Vegas with a factory in Mexico. They bought an existing factory in 2003 but I wouldn't call the current form of Acopa a Mexican company. I don't think US distribution is an issue. Agreed...what will be lacking/missed is John as the shoe designer. We'll have the current batch of shoes that they offer (which are some of the best), however we may not be offered the innovation that John brought in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Oct 21, 2009, 4:25 PM
Post #17 of 52
(5746 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
In reply to: Acopa is an American company based in Las Vegas with a factory in Mexico. They bought an existing factory in 2003 That's interesting to know. So Dario sold Acopa, Equipo Deportivo, SA de CV to Acopa International, LLC? Did it happen just after the accident?
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Oct 21, 2009, 4:33 PM
Post #18 of 52
(5734 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
rmsusa wrote: Acopa is a fairly successful Mexican company that's been producing shoes and selling them in Mexico for years. They seem to want to continue that. The US distributor is the question mark. Aliens? I love 'em, but is there enough in them to bother with? In reply to: ... Downside to the must-grow-at-all-costs ideal of economics is that as the profits grow, so too do the prices of goods and services and therefore the cost of living. There's no particular link between profits & prices. Profits can increase by selling more units, with no change in prices. Prices can increase with no change in profits by maintaining margin in the face of increases in input costs. Where did you hear of a "growth at all costs" ideal in economics? Seems obvious to me. I mean, everybody freaks out when growth drops below a certain rate, even if its still growing. My point is that you either increase profits by selling more units, or by raising prices. If demand stays constant, you won't increase profits without raising prices. That's basic math. Mind you, if other industries are increasing prices to increase profits or cover increasing operating costs or whatever, eventually you'll have to increase wages to be commensurate with the cost of living of your employees. Which means your expenses go up, so you either have to increase sales or increase prices to cover it. None of this complicated economic theory, its just simple math. My take on the theory side of things is that so long as we measure economic health in terms of economic growth, we'll continue to see prices increase without any measurable increase in quality. In that sense, growth drives inflation.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 21, 2009, 4:56 PM
Post #19 of 52
(5704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
rmsusa wrote: In reply to: Acopa is an American company based in Las Vegas with a factory in Mexico. They bought an existing factory in 2003 That's interesting to know. So Dario sold Acopa, Equipo Deportivo, SA de CV to Acopa International, LLC? Did it happen just after the accident? I don't really know much but there's a brief blurb on the history of the company at their website in the 'about us' link. http://www.acopausa.com/
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Oct 21, 2009, 4:57 PM
Post #20 of 52
(5701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
tradrenn wrote: Durin wrote: Since both of their founders have passed away, does anyone know what the future entails for these companies? Don't know, but I do hope that in future we can work out some nice relationship between RC.comers and CCH, for the good of all of us. I hope Nadia would be willing to listen to us. Respectfully Voytek Renn Alien user. I understand your intention but everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion as well as how they express it. d.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 21, 2009, 4:59 PM
Post #21 of 52
(5693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
petsfed wrote: rmsusa wrote: Acopa is a fairly successful Mexican company that's been producing shoes and selling them in Mexico for years. They seem to want to continue that. The US distributor is the question mark. Aliens? I love 'em, but is there enough in them to bother with? In reply to: ... Downside to the must-grow-at-all-costs ideal of economics is that as the profits grow, so too do the prices of goods and services and therefore the cost of living. There's no particular link between profits & prices. Profits can increase by selling more units, with no change in prices. Prices can increase with no change in profits by maintaining margin in the face of increases in input costs. Where did you hear of a "growth at all costs" ideal in economics? Seems obvious to me. I mean, everybody freaks out when growth drops below a certain rate, even if its still growing. My point is that you either increase profits by selling more units, or by raising prices. If demand stays constant, you won't increase profits without raising prices. That's basic math. Mind you, if other industries are increasing prices to increase profits or cover increasing operating costs or whatever, eventually you'll have to increase wages to be commensurate with the cost of living of your employees. Which means your expenses go up, so you either have to increase sales or increase prices to cover it. None of this complicated economic theory, its just simple math. My take on the theory side of things is that so long as we measure economic health in terms of economic growth, we'll continue to see prices increase without any measurable increase in quality. In that sense, growth drives inflation. There are a few think tanks working on a replacement for the GDP figure with some kind of measure of sustainability. I'm not sure that such a thing is possible but anything is better than a model based solely on increasing profits.
|
|
|
|
|
nkane
Oct 21, 2009, 5:29 PM
Post #22 of 52
(5653 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2006
Posts: 143
|
petsfed wrote: My point is that you either increase profits by selling more units, or by raising prices. If demand stays constant, you won't increase profits without raising prices. That's basic math. You could also cut costs.
|
|
|
|
|
scotty1974
Oct 21, 2009, 5:37 PM
Post #23 of 52
(5638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2006
Posts: 248
|
Don't know about future production runs, but you can still find aliens. I don't think they are carried as widespread, but I run into them all the time on the web.
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Oct 21, 2009, 7:34 PM
Post #24 of 52
(5542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
In reply to: Seems obvious to me. I mean, everybody freaks out when growth drops below a certain rate, even if its still growing. My point is that you either increase profits by selling more units, or by raising prices. If demand stays constant, you won't increase profits without raising prices. That's basic math. Mind you, if other industries are increasing prices to increase profits or cover increasing operating costs or whatever, eventually you'll have to increase wages to be commensurate with the cost of living of your employees. Which means your expenses go up, so you either have to increase sales or increase prices to cover it. None of this complicated economic theory, its just simple math. My take on the theory side of things is that so long as we measure economic health in terms of economic growth, we'll continue to see prices increase without any measurable increase in quality. In that sense, growth drives inflation. Well.... "growth at all costs" isn't any kind of an ideal, but growth is important. That's just a sort of sound bite that evokes an emotional response around a very complex issue. It may help if you think of it this way. If population increases, we have to provide new goods and services to provide for the additions or living standards fall since everybody can't have the same amount of goods & services anymore. So growth in the quantity of goods & services is important. If the central bankers get things right (low inflation), money is just a proxy for goods & services, so we measure the results in money. Now think about a country like China, where over half a million people live in abject poverty. We're talking here about not having the wherewithall to buy a pair of shoes and living without clean water, refrigeration or any kind of medical care. We have a moral imperative to increase the goods and services available in a situation like that. It would be nice if every house had a toilet, and maybe a refrigerator. Producing those things means economic growth, period. This is why it's so important that the underdeveloped countries grow their economies. Remember, again, that money is just a proxy for goods & services. In your profit discussion, you haven't taken productivity increases or reduction in prices of inputs into account. Either of these things can increase profits in a situation of static demand. It is certainly simple math, but you have to have a conceptual framework that takes all the variables into account. This is why economics education is so important. Most of the people who take economic health to be equivalent to economic growth seem to me to be news anchors whose currency is simplicity and sound bites (or maybe politicians).
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Oct 21, 2009, 7:39 PM
Post #25 of 52
(5534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
In reply to: anything is better than a model based solely on increasing profits. I'm gonna say it again. There is no model based solely on increasing profits except in the minds of wacky ideologues.
|
|
|
|
|
pfwein
Oct 21, 2009, 7:41 PM
Post #26 of 52
(1678 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
rmsusa wrote: Now think about a country like China, where over half a million people live in abject poverty. I think you meant billion or some other large number? I'm sure over half a million people in the good ol' US of A live in abject poverty.
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Oct 21, 2009, 7:50 PM
Post #27 of 52
(1672 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
hafilax wrote: rmsusa wrote: In reply to: Acopa is an American company based in Las Vegas with a factory in Mexico. They bought an existing factory in 2003 That's interesting to know. So Dario sold Acopa, Equipo Deportivo, SA de CV to Acopa International, LLC? Did it happen just after the accident? I don't really know much but there's a brief blurb on the history of the company at their website in the 'about us' link. http://www.acopausa.com/ I've certainly seen the blurb, which doesn't say much about the relationship between the two companies. It's a PR piece, meant for public consumption. Acopa, Mexico is more than just the factory. It's a company and a brand of climbing shoe that's been sold since the early 90's. I don't know exactly who owns the intellectual property and how distribution rights are divided now. Guess I'll ask Dario at summer OR.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 21, 2009, 7:54 PM
Post #28 of 52
(1672 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
rmsusa wrote: In reply to: anything is better than a model based solely on increasing profits. I'm gonna say it again. There is no model based solely on increasing profits except in the minds of wacky ideologues. I have very little knowledge of this kind of thing. All I know is that there a lot of people who are trying to come up with a method to evaluate the sustainability of a business. This does not preclude growth and I'm not sure that anyone really knows what it means yet. They just think that the current system is broken. Maybe I listen to too many idealogues but the current economic woes indicate to me that there is a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Oct 21, 2009, 8:04 PM
Post #29 of 52
(1661 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
rmsusa wrote: In reply to: Seems obvious to me. I mean, everybody freaks out when growth drops below a certain rate, even if its still growing. My point is that you either increase profits by selling more units, or by raising prices. If demand stays constant, you won't increase profits without raising prices. That's basic math. Mind you, if other industries are increasing prices to increase profits or cover increasing operating costs or whatever, eventually you'll have to increase wages to be commensurate with the cost of living of your employees. Which means your expenses go up, so you either have to increase sales or increase prices to cover it. None of this complicated economic theory, its just simple math. My take on the theory side of things is that so long as we measure economic health in terms of economic growth, we'll continue to see prices increase without any measurable increase in quality. In that sense, growth drives inflation. Well.... "growth at all costs" isn't any kind of an ideal, but growth is important. That's just a sort of sound bite that evokes an emotional response around a very complex issue. It may help if you think of it this way. If population increases, we have to provide new goods and services to provide for the additions or living standards fall since everybody can't have the same amount of goods & services anymore. So growth in the quantity of goods & services is important. If the central bankers get things right (low inflation), money is just a proxy for goods & services, so we measure the results in money. Now think about a country like China, where over half a million people live in abject poverty. We're talking here about not having the wherewithall to buy a pair of shoes and living without clean water, refrigeration or any kind of medical care. We have a moral imperative to increase the goods and services available in a situation like that. It would be nice if every house had a toilet, and maybe a refrigerator. Producing those things means economic growth, period. This is why it's so important that the underdeveloped countries grow their economies. Remember, again, that money is just a proxy for goods & services. In your profit discussion, you haven't taken productivity increases or reduction in prices of inputs into account. Either of these things can increase profits in a situation of static demand. It is certainly simple math, but you have to have a conceptual framework that takes all the variables into account. This is why economics education is so important. Most of the people who take economic health to be equivalent to economic growth seem to me to be news anchors whose currency is simplicity and sound bites (or maybe politicians). The highlighted part is where I knew your argument was bullshit and just a cover to grab as much cash as possible for whoever's steering the wheel until the boat runs aground.
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Oct 21, 2009, 8:52 PM
Post #30 of 52
(1632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
shockabuku wrote: rmsusa wrote: In reply to: Seems obvious to me. I mean, everybody freaks out when growth drops below a certain rate, even if its still growing. My point is that you either increase profits by selling more units, or by raising prices. If demand stays constant, you won't increase profits without raising prices. That's basic math. Mind you, if other industries are increasing prices to increase profits or cover increasing operating costs or whatever, eventually you'll have to increase wages to be commensurate with the cost of living of your employees. Which means your expenses go up, so you either have to increase sales or increase prices to cover it. None of this complicated economic theory, its just simple math. My take on the theory side of things is that so long as we measure economic health in terms of economic growth, we'll continue to see prices increase without any measurable increase in quality. In that sense, growth drives inflation. Well.... "growth at all costs" isn't any kind of an ideal, but growth is important. That's just a sort of sound bite that evokes an emotional response around a very complex issue. It may help if you think of it this way. If population increases, we have to provide new goods and services to provide for the additions or living standards fall since everybody can't have the same amount of goods & services anymore. So growth in the quantity of goods & services is important. If the central bankers get things right (low inflation), money is just a proxy for goods & services, so we measure the results in money. Now think about a country like China, where over half a million people live in abject poverty. We're talking here about not having the wherewithall to buy a pair of shoes and living without clean water, refrigeration or any kind of medical care. We have a moral imperative to increase the goods and services available in a situation like that. It would be nice if every house had a toilet, and maybe a refrigerator. Producing those things means economic growth, period. This is why it's so important that the underdeveloped countries grow their economies. Remember, again, that money is just a proxy for goods & services. In your profit discussion, you haven't taken productivity increases or reduction in prices of inputs into account. Either of these things can increase profits in a situation of static demand. It is certainly simple math, but you have to have a conceptual framework that takes all the variables into account. This is why economics education is so important. Most of the people who take economic health to be equivalent to economic growth seem to me to be news anchors whose currency is simplicity and sound bites (or maybe politicians). The highlighted part is where I knew your argument was bullshit and just a cover to grab as much cash as possible for whoever's steering the wheel until the boat runs aground. Isn't that the essence of capitalism? Use up the planet's resources to make tons of money. Then buy a new planet and do it all over again.
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Oct 21, 2009, 9:42 PM
Post #31 of 52
(1605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
In reply to: Now think about a country like China, where over half a million people live in abject poverty. We're talking here about not having the wherewithall to buy a pair of shoes and living without clean water, refrigeration or any kind of medical care. We have a moral imperative to increase the goods and services available in a situation like that. It would be nice if every house had a toilet, and maybe a refrigerator. Producing those things means economic growth, period. This is why it's so important that the underdeveloped countries grow their economies. Remember, again, that money is just a proxy for goods & services.
In reply to: The highlighted part is where I knew your argument was bullshit and just a cover to grab as much cash as possible for whoever's steering the wheel until the boat runs aground Have you no conscience? Have you no empathy for the plight of fellow humans? Do you just not understand that material things are needed for a life free from disease and discomfort? These people desperately need things to reduce infant mortality, to eliminate intestinal parasites, to fill their teeth when they rot, to prevent death from bacterial infection. The only way to make this happen is to make the stuff they need to bring it about. That means clean water, refrigeration for food, wastewater treatment, etc. Where does this stuff come from? It doesn't materialize out of thin air and when it does get produced, the economy, by definition, will grow. What a cold-hearted statement!
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Oct 21, 2009, 9:45 PM
Post #32 of 52
(1603 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
pfwein wrote: rmsusa wrote: Now think about a country like China, where over half a million people live in abject poverty. I think you meant billion or some other large number? I'm sure over half a million people in the good ol' US of A live in abject poverty. That's correct. Abject poverty of the kind you see in China simply doesn't exist in the US. Abject, in this case means living on less than US $2/day.
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Oct 21, 2009, 9:48 PM
Post #33 of 52
(1599 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
In reply to: The highlighted part is where I knew your argument was bullshit and just a cover to grab as much cash as possible for whoever's steering the wheel until the boat runs aground Now there's a soundbite meant to produce maximal emotional response! You don't run a radio talk show, do you?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Oct 21, 2009, 10:01 PM
Post #34 of 52
(1589 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Oct 21, 2009, 10:12 PM
Post #35 of 52
(1579 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
hafilax wrote: rmsusa wrote: In reply to: anything is better than a model based solely on increasing profits. I'm gonna say it again. There is no model based solely on increasing profits except in the minds of wacky ideologues. I have very little knowledge of this kind of thing. All I know is that there a lot of people who are trying to come up with a method to evaluate the sustainability of a business. This does not preclude growth and I'm not sure that anyone really knows what it means yet. They just think that the current system is broken. Maybe I listen to too many idealogues but the current economic woes indicate to me that there is a problem. You're right. Nobody knows what sustainability of a business means, never mind an entire social system (economy). There are lots of smart people thinking about it. Sustainability probably doesn't preclude cycles, either. One of the problems we have here is that we talk of an "economic system" as if it were a real thing that can be bounded and managed. It's not. It's a set of complex social behaviors that evolved with the human race. In some sense, the economy IS society. Human beings exchange things by their nature and by necessity. It's not a "system", it just happened, and when humans learned how to do partial differential equations, they incorporated those techniques into their exchanges. It worked in Physics, it ought to work for risk pricing. Economics may be the most profound of all the social sciences, since exchange may be the most pervasive of all the human social behaviors. We're experiencing a cycle just like all the cycles that've happened ever since people started trading stuff. Most people thought we'd finally gotten the cycles under control using techniques for trading risk developed in the 1970's & 80's. Turned out not to be true. I'm not sure that "the system's broken" even makes any sense. Maybe the cycles are just an inherent property of social systems? Maybe we need some new rules governing certain types of exchange. I'll go for that.
|
|
|
|
|
pfwein
Oct 21, 2009, 10:39 PM
Post #36 of 52
(1566 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
adatesman wrote: rmsusa wrote: pfwein wrote: rmsusa wrote: Now think about a country like China, where over half a million people live in abject poverty. I think you meant billion or some other large number? I'm sure over half a million people in the good ol' US of A live in abject poverty. That's correct. Abject poverty of the kind you see in China simply doesn't exist in the US. Abject, in this case means living on less than US $2/day. $2/day goes a lot further in some parts of the world than others, hence there being a hole in your logic. I agree, and further, abject poverty does exist here, I've seen it. It just may be suffered primarily by people like drug addicted, mentally ill, homeless, runaways, etc. (obviously a lot of overlap in those groups). But they all count, at least in my book.
|
|
|
|
|
herbertpowell
Oct 22, 2009, 1:08 AM
Post #37 of 52
(1521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 79
|
PPP-Purchasing power parity However, no matter how you slice it, 2 dollars a day is pretty damned poor, even in countries with a very low cost of living. I've been to some places where plenty of people struggle to eat, and are quite happy to get my table scraps from the restaurant where I just ate.
|
|
|
|
|
herbertpowell
Oct 22, 2009, 1:15 AM
Post #38 of 52
(1518 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 79
|
hafilax wrote: rmsusa wrote: In reply to: anything is better than a model based solely on increasing profits. I'm gonna say it again. There is no model based solely on increasing profits except in the minds of wacky ideologues. I have very little knowledge of this kind of thing. All I know is that there a lot of people who are trying to come up with a method to evaluate the sustainability of a business. This does not preclude growth and I'm not sure that anyone really knows what it means yet. They just think that the current system is broken. Maybe I listen to too many idealogues but the current economic woes indicate to me that there is a problem. Far too often, analysts create business forecasts and plans based on the idea that growth will continue at x rate for however long. Think of it this way. . . look at the growth rate (pre-2007) of a company like Google. You can use that to calculate exactly how long it will take for Google to rule the world (meaning they'd own everything). But is that likely? No. I too have heard a lot about "sustainability" measures, but it relates more to risk assessment for finance, rather than an idea of anything being broken. Risk assessment is a big deal now, a lot of people in the US got a rude awakening that growth doesn't continue forever at a fixed rate. Housing prices won't always go up. Stock prices won't always go up. Etc.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Oct 22, 2009, 1:39 AM
Post #39 of 52
(1510 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
rmsusa wrote: Most of the people who take economic health to be equivalent to economic growth seem to me to be news anchors whose currency is simplicity and sound bites (or maybe politicians). Hate to be a cynic, but if you say that the study of economics is the study of society, say also that the people who say that economic growth = economic health work for the nightly news, then consider how many people swallow the nightly news, hook, line and sinker, you paint a very dark picture of how our economy will proceed. I don't know how many times I've thought to myself "if only people would be rational, the world would be a much better place!", then laughed till I cried wondering if unicorns might have a similar impact.
(This post was edited by petsfed on Oct 22, 2009, 1:40 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Oct 22, 2009, 2:37 AM
Post #40 of 52
(1490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
rmsusa wrote: In reply to: Now think about a country like China, where over half a million people live in abject poverty. We're talking here about not having the wherewithall to buy a pair of shoes and living without clean water, refrigeration or any kind of medical care. We have a moral imperative to increase the goods and services available in a situation like that. It would be nice if every house had a toilet, and maybe a refrigerator. Producing those things means economic growth, period. This is why it's so important that the underdeveloped countries grow their economies. Remember, again, that money is just a proxy for goods & services. In reply to: The highlighted part is where I knew your argument was bullshit and just a cover to grab as much cash as possible for whoever's steering the wheel until the boat runs aground Have you no conscience? Have you no empathy for the plight of fellow humans? Do you just not understand that material things are needed for a life free from disease and discomfort? These people desperately need things to reduce infant mortality, to eliminate intestinal parasites, to fill their teeth when they rot, to prevent death from bacterial infection. The only way to make this happen is to make the stuff they need to bring it about. That means clean water, refrigeration for food, wastewater treatment, etc. Where does this stuff come from? It doesn't materialize out of thin air and when it does get produced, the economy, by definition, will grow. What a cold-hearted statement! Do I have a conscience? Yes. And I've seen abject poverty, it clearly sucks. Whole families living in huts made out of sticks and scrap plastic with dirt floors and the animals, if there are any, walking in and out of the huts. Guess what? Big business doesn't give a shit if they aren't making money off it, and you don't make money by selling shit to poor people.
|
|
|
|
|
herbertpowell
Oct 22, 2009, 3:21 AM
Post #41 of 52
(1464 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 79
|
shockabuku wrote: rmsusa wrote: In reply to: Now think about a country like China, where over half a million people live in abject poverty. We're talking here about not having the wherewithall to buy a pair of shoes and living without clean water, refrigeration or any kind of medical care. We have a moral imperative to increase the goods and services available in a situation like that. It would be nice if every house had a toilet, and maybe a refrigerator. Producing those things means economic growth, period. This is why it's so important that the underdeveloped countries grow their economies. Remember, again, that money is just a proxy for goods & services. In reply to: The highlighted part is where I knew your argument was bullshit and just a cover to grab as much cash as possible for whoever's steering the wheel until the boat runs aground Have you no conscience? Have you no empathy for the plight of fellow humans? Do you just not understand that material things are needed for a life free from disease and discomfort? These people desperately need things to reduce infant mortality, to eliminate intestinal parasites, to fill their teeth when they rot, to prevent death from bacterial infection. The only way to make this happen is to make the stuff they need to bring it about. That means clean water, refrigeration for food, wastewater treatment, etc. Where does this stuff come from? It doesn't materialize out of thin air and when it does get produced, the economy, by definition, will grow. What a cold-hearted statement! Do I have a conscience? Yes. And I've seen abject poverty, it clearly sucks. Whole families living in huts made out of sticks and scrap plastic with dirt floors and the animals, if there are any, walking in and out of the huts. Guess what? Big business doesn't give a shit if they aren't making money off it, and you don't make money by selling shit to poor people. Actually, there is a huge amount of money to be made by "selling shit to poor people". It's called the "bottom of the pyramid". Think about Walmart, but on a HUGE scale. A great example is Tata Motors. They released a US $2500 car! That is the lowest priced production car. That opens up a huge market of people that never would have been able to afford a car before. And clearly, it is working for Tata. . . considering they now own Jaguar, Land Rover, and Daiwoo Commercial Vehicles.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Oct 22, 2009, 6:39 AM
Post #42 of 52
(1423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
rmsusa wrote: hafilax wrote: rmsusa wrote: In reply to: Acopa is an American company based in Las Vegas with a factory in Mexico. They bought an existing factory in 2003 That's interesting to know. So Dario sold Acopa, Equipo Deportivo, SA de CV to Acopa International, LLC? Did it happen just after the accident? I don't really know much but there's a brief blurb on the history of the company at their website in the 'about us' link. http://www.acopausa.com/ I've certainly seen the blurb, which doesn't say much about the relationship between the two companies. It's a PR piece, meant for public consumption. Acopa, Mexico is more than just the factory. It's a company and a brand of climbing shoe that's been sold since the early 90's. I don't know exactly who owns the intellectual property and how distribution rights are divided now. Guess I'll ask Dario at summer OR. Think of Acopa International as a separate company from Dario's manufacturing facility in Mexico- his facility is the sole manufacturer for Acopa shoes, but if i understand correctly, and i may not, it is not owned by Acopa International. Dario has, to my knowledge, some stake in Acopa International, but the majority is held by the Bachar and Karafa families. Regardless, you can expect Acopa to go on- as they should, Bachar wouldnt have it any other way.
|
|
|
|
|
nattfodd
Oct 22, 2009, 1:26 PM
Post #43 of 52
(1379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2009
Posts: 85
|
Not so sure anymore (that link is now a bit old), as all the stores I went to in Utah at the beginning of the month had their Acopas heavily discounted (which allowed me to pick up a pair of JB for 79$), it seems dealers are getting rid of their stocks. It certainly would be a shame if they went out of business.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Oct 22, 2009, 2:20 PM
Post #44 of 52
(1359 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
If you can afford a $2500 car, you're not the poor that I was referring to. I'm talking about the people who can't afford underwear.
|
|
|
|
|
pfwein
Oct 22, 2009, 2:25 PM
Post #45 of 52
(1356 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
nattfodd wrote: Not so sure anymore (that link is now a bit old), as all the stores I went to in Utah at the beginning of the month had their Acopas heavily discounted (which allowed me to pick up a pair of JB for 79$), it seems dealers are getting rid of their stocks. It certainly would be a shame if they went out of business. I agree, I got my first pair of Acopa's recently and love them. I hope the guys/gals in charge there can keep it together.
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Oct 22, 2009, 6:04 PM
Post #46 of 52
(1299 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
In reply to: Do I have a conscience? Yes. And I've seen abject poverty, it clearly sucks. Whole families living in huts made out of sticks and scrap plastic with dirt floors and the animals, if there are any, walking in and out of the huts. Then why, in heaven's name, do you write as if you don't? Let's all get together and help these people lift themselves up. You ought to support businesses that are helping build local infrastructure and bring basic necessities to these people. The way out isn't handouts. The way out is commerce. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Oct 22, 2009, 8:11 PM
Post #47 of 52
(1254 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
rmsusa wrote: In reply to: Do I have a conscience? Yes. And I've seen abject poverty, it clearly sucks. Whole families living in huts made out of sticks and scrap plastic with dirt floors and the animals, if there are any, walking in and out of the huts. Then why, in heaven's name, do you write as if you don't? Let's all get together and help these people lift themselves up. You ought to support businesses that are helping build local infrastructure and bring basic necessities to these people. The way out isn't handouts. The way out is commerce. Period. Maybe you should stop reading like a bleeding heart. Anyway, if I saw any businesses doing anything for these type of communities I would support them. But I've never seen that. I see businesses coming into areas where they can make money. That's it. So don't expect me to believe that big business in general has the welfare of the world as their motivating factor because I won't buy that.
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Oct 22, 2009, 9:16 PM
Post #48 of 52
(1225 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
In reply to: Anyway, if I saw any businesses doing anything for these type of communities I would support them. But I've never seen that. I see businesses coming into areas where they can make money. That's it. So don't expect me to believe that big business in general has the welfare of the world as their motivating factor because I won't buy that. Did you read the example of Tata and the $2500 automobile a few postings back? Have you heard of doing well while doing good? People are complex and rarely have single motivations. Businesses, composed of people, are the same.
|
|
|
|
|
larryd
Oct 22, 2009, 9:25 PM
Post #49 of 52
(1216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 77
|
nattfodd wrote: Not so sure anymore (that link is now a bit old), as all the stores I went to in Utah at the beginning of the month had their Acopas heavily discounted (which allowed me to pick up a pair of JB for 79$), it seems dealers are getting rid of their stocks. Acopa is staying around-- I just talked with some folks there and there is no plan to close up shop. New models for 2010 are about to come out...
|
|
|
|
|
tarsier
Oct 22, 2009, 9:37 PM
Post #50 of 52
(1204 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2003
Posts: 127
|
Do a search through the Secretary of States of Nevada and Wyoming and you can find the legal entities and agents' contact information. Then you can get financing and arrange to purchase the businesses and revive them.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 22, 2009, 9:42 PM
Post #51 of 52
(472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
rmsusa wrote: In reply to: Anyway, if I saw any businesses doing anything for these type of communities I would support them. But I've never seen that. I see businesses coming into areas where they can make money. That's it. So don't expect me to believe that big business in general has the welfare of the world as their motivating factor because I won't buy that. Did you read the example of Tata and the $2500 automobile a few postings back? Have you heard of doing well while doing good? People are complex and rarely have single motivations. Businesses, composed of people, are the same. You should take this to the Soap Box in Community.
|
|
|
|
|
Durin
Oct 23, 2009, 3:33 AM
Post #52 of 52
(432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2007
Posts: 113
|
herbertpowell wrote: I've been to some places where plenty of people struggle to eat, and are quite happy to get my table scraps from the restaurant where I just ate. So YOU were that guy at Yosemite Lodge Cafeteria who gave me food! Thanks man!
|
|
|
|
|
|