A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Marketplace
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Huffy leaves bankruptcy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old October 20th 05, 12:13 AM
Michael Press
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Huffy leaves bankruptcy

In article ,
David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Claire Petersky :
"Jasper Janssen" wrote in message
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:08:20 GMT, Michael Press wrote:
Going fast is a thrill, not an obsession.
Bicycles, downhills aside, don't get you going fast enough to be a speed
thrill. You need something motorised for that.

Why are we setting downhills aside? Let's go down Kamber Road together at
50+ mph, and you can decide if it's a thrill or not.


It probably is, but a super-expensive light bike isn't going to help you
get that thrill, which is kind of where they started...


Not where I came in, that being the consideration of a
well set up efficient bicycle; not the question of cost.
The OP said that he got his exercise pushing around a
heavy wheeled Huffy. I said that a more efficient ride
provides an equal oppurtunity for exercise, will go faster
for the same effort, and will provide the additional
gratification of its efficiency as; speed being, not the
raison d' être, but a welcome side effect.

Nor is expensive a requirement for an efficient well set
up bicycle. This forum has heard many riders recount the
saga of their pride and joy built for pocket change, so I
need not provide mine. But I must add that I spoke with a
gent here in town yesterday who acquired late 1980's
Thomasio frame for a pittance, then built it up with spare
parts.

--
Michael Press
Ads
  #32  
Old October 20th 05, 09:49 PM
Jasper Janssen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Huffy leaves bankruptcy

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:19:38 GMT, Werehatrack
wrote:

Translation: "Huffy will provide yet another conduit for US wealth to
be conveyed one-way to Asia, for as long as it takes for China to
complete the process of stripping the US of its ability to compete
with them in any area or to influence or restrict Chinese ambitions."


There's an old saying: "If the bank lends you one million, the bank you
owns you. If it loans you a billion, you own the bank."

Most of that currency going to China is coming back, primarily in the form
of the national debt. If China were to declare war on the US, open or
cold, it would hurt them very, very badly financially. I have a sneaking
suspicion that this is considered a desired outcome by the
administration(s).

Jasper
  #33  
Old October 22nd 05, 02:39 PM
Ron Hardin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Huffy leaves bankruptcy

Jasper Janssen wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:19:38 GMT, Werehatrack
wrote:

Translation: "Huffy will provide yet another conduit for US wealth to
be conveyed one-way to Asia, for as long as it takes for China to
complete the process of stripping the US of its ability to compete
with them in any area or to influence or restrict Chinese ambitions."


There's an old saying: "If the bank lends you one million, the bank you
owns you. If it loans you a billion, you own the bank."

Most of that currency going to China is coming back, primarily in the form
of the national debt. If China were to declare war on the US, open or
cold, it would hurt them very, very badly financially. I have a sneaking
suspicion that this is considered a desired outcome by the
administration(s).

Jasper


The only thing on God's green earth that you can use dollars for is buying
something in the USA. They're buying US debt (called ``investment'').

They no longer have the money. In fact if they would just burn it instead,
it would have the same effect. The money comes back then virtually, as the Fed
simply replaces it by buying back its own debt as if it were China by printing
more money.

On the country level, money is not wealth. When they add up the wealth of the country,
they don't count money. Only individually does it seem like it's worth something.

Basically money is a ticket in line to say what the US economy does next, presumably
something for you. The Fed adds or subtracts money every day so that there are
neither too many nor too few outstanding tickets in line, compared to what the US economy
is capable of doing at once. Too few and you get a recession; too many and you get
inflation as ticket holders bid against each other for the same thing.

Sending money to China just puts those tickets out of circulation, so the Fed prints
more until China returns them to the US, when the Fed unprints the new tickets by
selling new debt. In short, China has no leverage at all as a result, except they
could buy something from us rather than buying debt.

--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
  #34  
Old October 22nd 05, 05:53 PM
41
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Huffy leaves bankruptcy


Ron Hardin wrote:
Jasper Janssen wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:19:38 GMT, Werehatrack
wrote:

Translation: "Huffy will provide yet another conduit for US wealth to
be conveyed one-way to Asia, fo r as long as it takes for China to
complete the process of stripping the US of its ability to compete
with them in any area or to influence or restrict Chinese ambitions."


There's an old saying: "If the bank lends you one million, the bank you
owns you. If it loans you a billion, you own the bank."

Most of that currency going to China is coming back, primarily in the form
of the national debt. If China were to declare war on the US, open or
cold, it would hurt them very, very badly financially. I have a sneaking
suspicion that this is considered a desired outcome by the
administration(s).

Jasper


The only thing on God's green earth that you can use dollars for is buying
something in the USA. They're buying US debt (called ``investment'').

They no longer have the money. In fact if they would just burn it instead,
it would have the same effect. The money comes back then virtually, as the Fed
simply replaces it by buying back its own debt as if it were China by printing
more money.

On the country level, money is not wealth. When they add up the wealth of the country,
they don't count money. Only individually does it seem like it's worth something.

Basically money is a ticket in line to say what the US economy does next, presumably
something for you. The Fed adds or subtracts money every day so that there are
neither too many nor too few outstanding tickets in line, compared to what the US economy
is capable of d oing at once. Too few and you get a recession; too many and you get
inflation as ticket holders bid against each other for the same thing.

Sending money to China just puts those tickets out of circulation, so the Fed prints
more until China retu rns them to the US, when the Fed unprints the new tickets by
selling new debt. In short, China has no leverage at all as a result, except they
could buy something from us rather than buying debt.



Apart from a few clarifications, and the fact that perhaps since I
missed the earlier parts of the thread, some of this is unclear to me
(who is they and what is who sending where why? If they would just burn
it instead of what?), this is an excellent explanation, in particular
the second to last paragraph. Where did you get it from?

Some clarifications:
1. It's not quite true that the only thing you can do with US dollars
is buy stuff in the USA, nor vice versa for several other currencies.
For example, you can pay for most merchandise with US dollars in
Canada, albeit at a penalty beyond the best exchange rate. In some New
England states, most particularly Vermont, you can often use Canadian
dollars at par to buy items in the US (i.e. buy in Vermont a US$1 item
and pay for it with C$1.) You can also use US dollars to buy oil on the
world market, since, for the time being at least, world oil prices are
dollar denominated. It is possible that eventually they will move to
the euro, which would have a major impact on US finances. And of
course, you can use US dollars to buy bank notes of just about any
currency in the world.

2. As I said maybe I missed something, but it is not true that the
de-industrialization of the US is not resulting in a transfer of wealth
from the US to China. Very often the domestic plant and equipment is
boxed up and shipped over to China, so that the factory and all its
capital goods are transplanted to China, and production of the same
product resumes, except with Chinese labour, non-USA materials
suppiers, and on Chinese soil. This is a real transfer of wealth.

3. Money is only sometimes a ticket in line to say what the US economy
does next. That's reserved for financiers. For the rest of us, it's a
ticket in line to validate what went down before- often nowadays,
"what went down before" being a decision from a retailer to buy
something from China.

3

  #35  
Old October 23rd 05, 04:14 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Huffy leaves bankruptcy

Hiya B!
It's be more likely for Sino-Huffy to figure market research is
fundamentally flawed and deliver a bunch of rebadged Flying Pigeon
roadsters instead of beach cruisers to the warehouse chains of the USA.
THAT would be kind of fun -- what would US consumers do when confronted
with a bike with no style, somewhat thinner, more road-centric tires,
handlebars you can handle without separating your shoulders, tons of
guts (and weight, I know) and an installed rack?

I'm not holding my breath for either roadster imports or cheap
recumbents. Although I note my local collegiate bike shop has a new
Raleigh 3 speed "chopper" marked down to $199. And it has a wide seat
with a back.

Robert Leone
bryanska wrote:
It would be kinda cool if Huffy made a $300 recumbent. I'd buy one to
try.


  #36  
Old October 23rd 05, 04:50 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Huffy leaves bankruptcy


41 wrote:
Ron Hardin wrote:
Jasper Janssen wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:19:38 GMT, Werehatrack
wrote:


Basic econ theories snipped


Folks, I think you're all missing here that the People's Republic Of
China IS NOT a capitalist system (although it's creeping closer to it
every day) and, as a state-ruled
central economic system, its monetary rules and international trade
rules are basically anything it wants it to be.

  #37  
Old October 23rd 05, 05:26 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Huffy leaves bankruptcy

Oh, and as long as we're talking about China...

Mao: The Unknown Story
by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
832pp, Cape, £25
The author of Wild Swans and her historian husband, Jon Halliday, have
torn away the many masks and falsehoods with which Mao and the
Communist party of China to this day have hidden the true picture of
Mao the man and Mao the ruler. Mao now stands revealed as one of the
greatest monsters of the 20th century alongside Hitler and Stalin.
Indeed, in terms of sheer numbers of deaths for which he responsible,
Mao, with some 70 million, exceeded both.

Far from being the first Chinese communist leader to stand up for the
Chinese peasantry and to respond to their needs and lead them out of
exploitation, Mao is exposed as a man who disdained the peasants,
despite his protestations to the contrary. He is shown during his
command of armed forces in the countryside in the late 1920s and early
30s to have lived off the produce of the local peasants to the extent
of leaving them destitute. He consciously used terror as a means to
enforce his will on the party and on the people who came under his
rule. In the course of the Long March, Mao is shown to have had no
qualms in sacrificing thousands of scarce fighting men in fruitless
diversions to serve no other purpose than to advance his bid for
leadership.
His callous disregard for the lives of comrades and fellow Chinese
became more evident once he commanded the larger stage of China itself.
Against the advice of his commanders on the ground, Mao persisted in
prolonging the Korean war in the expectation of tying down hundreds of
thousands of American troops, regardless of the disproportionate
sacrifice of far greater Chinese casualties. The livelihood of China's
peasants was tightly squeezed through most of Mao's rule, not simply to
meet the needs of industry and the urban population, but also to pay
the Soviet Union and the east Europeans for the development of advanced
weapons - especially for the development of nuclear weapons.

The suffering of the peasants plumbed new depths during Mao's
hare-brained scheme to overtake Britain and the United States in the
disaster known as the Great Leap Forward, which led to the starvation
and premature deaths of 30-40 million people. To the end of his life
Mao continued to sacrifice the Chinese people in his search for
superpower status.

Chang and Halliday cast new and revealing light on nearly every episode
in Mao's tumultuous life. Among the most significant of their
discoveries is that the myth of the Long March was a sham. Chiang
Kai-shek in effect made a safe passage for the Reds through particular
provinces where his rule was weak, so that his pursuing forces could
overcome the local warlords. Moreover, Chiang was constrained from
destroying the Reds because his son was held hostage in Moscow. Even
the fabled crossing of the Dadu chain bridge, when, according to Mao,
his heroic soldiers managed to cross the narrow bridge against heavy
machine-gun fire, is shown to be a complete invention. The
indefatigable authors consulted Nationalist sources, interviewed local
historians and even visited the scene.

Mao is shown to have been completely dependent on Soviet support and to
have taken the view that the Chinese communists would succeed only if
they were able to link up with the Soviet Union and receive massive
assistance. This eventually happened in Manchuria in 1946-47. The
American General Marshall, who had attempted to mediate in the civil
war, had unwittingly saved the communist armies by imposing a truce in
the summer of 1946 that lasted for four months. It was this truce that
prevented Chiang's armies from crushing the retreating Reds. The
ceasefire enabled the latter to be massively replenished by the Soviet
side and then reverse the tide to win in Manchuria and then gain the
rest of China.

Some of the distortions of history perpetrated by Mao and the Communist
party have already been exposed by western and Chinese scholars. They
have had access to writings and documents released by Chinese party
historians, and their studies have also been enriched by access to
archives from the former communist bloc, notably those in Moscow.

Chang and Halliday have not only made full use of this literature, but
judging from their notes, they have spent the past 11 years going
through the archives themselves, some of them in countries whose
records had not been examined for this purpose before. They have also
used their contacts in China to interview an extraordinary array of
people who were close to Mao and other leaders. These range from family
members to friends, colleagues, secretaries, witnesses and even a woman
who once washed Mao's underwear. Consequently, the authors are able to
shed new light on virtually every episode of Mao's life. For example,
it has been known for some time that one of the dirty secrets of Yenan
was that opium was produced and marketed from there. The authors show
how this enriched those at the top and built up the reserves of the
local government, and alleviated some the depredations made on the
peasantry - but they also show how the inflation caused by the opium
money made things worse, too.

Mao himself comes across as a uniquely self-centred man whose strength
was his utter disregard for others, his pitilessness, his
single-mindedness, his capacity for intrigue and his ability to exploit
weakness. He neglected his wives, whom he treated cruelly, and had no
time for his children. He loved food and reading and had an infinite
supply of young women. Mao lacked personal courage and had some 50
villas built for him in different parts of China, which were
constructed to withstand bombing and even nuclear attack.

Mao had none of the skills usually associated with a successful
revolutionary leader. He was no orator and he lacked either idealism or
a clear ideology. He was not even a particularly good organiser. But he
was driven by a personal lust for power. He came to dominate his
colleagues through a mixture of blackmail and terror. And he seems to
have enjoyed every minute of it. Indeed what he learned from his
witnessing of a peasant uprising in his home province of Hunan in 1927
was that he derived a sadistic pleasure from seeing people put to death
in horrible ways and generally being terrified. During the Cultural
Revolution he watched films of the violence and of colleagues being
tortured.

The use of terror typified Mao's rule. Although he had his equivalent
of the KGB, Mao's distinctive form of terror was to get people to use
it against each other. This was the model that he perfected in Yenan,
when everybody was coerced into the exercise of criticism and
self-criticism by which they were forced to confess and implicate each
other in terrible "wrongs". It was a method that was then extended to
the whole of China, as people were confined to their work units in the
cities and their villages in the countryside.

This magnificent book is not without its blemishes. There is no
discussion of the quality of the sources or how they were used. The
motives of people in general and of Mao in particular are asserted
rather than evaluated. There is no introduction or concluding chapter
to bring together the key themes of the book. Nevertheless it is a
stupendous work and one hopes that it will be brought before the
Chinese people, who still claim to venerate the man and who have yet to
come to terms with their own history, even as they require others to do
so.

· Michael Yahuda is professor emeritus at the London School of
Economics and visiting scholar, George Washington University

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/...ticle_continue

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Huffy leaves bankruptcy Garrison Hilliard Techniques 48 October 24th 05 12:00 AM
Huffy leaves bankruptcy Garrison Hilliard General 38 October 23rd 05 11:20 PM
Bicycle maker Huffy seeks shield Garrison Hilliard General 4 October 22nd 04 02:25 PM
In the News: Can Huffy survive in bike biz? Jason Spaceman Mountain Biking 11 August 4th 04 04:21 AM
In the News: Can Huffy survive in bike biz? Jason Spaceman Techniques 10 August 4th 04 04:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.