> From: Van Varga <vanvarga@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Subject: Value added
>
> Value added, dollars per pound of various products:
>
> Satellite..........$20,000
> Jet fighter........ 2,500
> Supercomputer 1,700
> Jet engine....... 900
> Jumbo jet.......... 350
> Video camera........ 280
> Mainframe comp. 160
> Semiconductor 100
> Submarine.............115
> Colour TV...............16
> CNC machine...........11
> Luxury car...............10
> Standard car..............5
> Cargo ship.................1
>
>
> These figures are a decade old. Anyone have some updated numbers? More
> products rated?
where are those numbers invented from ? who made the calculus? an american
list ,eventually valid also in Phillipines : certainly NOT.
By wich kind of relative values do you consider the value of a fallen plane
or a friction burned Mir station ? Or a sinking oil tanker?
I suppose you could include the value added , humane one, to each scrap of
WTC "GOOD JAPANESE QUALITY" metal sold to China,( No Pittsburgh steel
there), as it happened in Berlin to each stone of the Wall.
Did you consider the value added to art pieces? to designed buildings, like
the Eiffel tower or the Atomium in Bruxelles, who should also have gone to
scrap so many years ago ?
(btw just wondering : was the liberty statue in NY designed to stay , also,
for so many years or not ?or was she constructed with the idea of a possible
demolition ? like the eiffel tower or the atomium ?)
Is good design adding more value to common objects ?
is a too good design the reason for the survival of some objects designed to
be destructed like those two ?
or is a symbolic value more important? like the value of an implosed old
stadium in some place of the USA?
The value of any object considered now important could have been considered
nihil when made. who tought Bauhaus or Art nouveau buildings would have NOW
so enormous $$$ or artistic value, if many were destroyed in the era(s)
between their construction and the more recent interest in those ?
the value of the objects we construct/design doesn't depend only on the
material aspect we see at first sight, like in the prior list.
Value shoudn't be the mere capitalistically overdevelopped result of human
activity.
I prefer the warmth of an old wood stove to the unsmoken/ing atomic energy
emanating from some electric heater. the future of our world relies more in
rediscovering important values (scrap re-sellers never forget that) in very
common objects. meaby we should all just try to reconsider basic ones.
like recycle,bicycle. Some greenish moment, here.
?¼?
>
> Subject: Value added
>
> Value added, dollars per pound of various products:
>
> Satellite..........$20,000
> Jet fighter........ 2,500
> Supercomputer 1,700
> Jet engine....... 900
> Jumbo jet.......... 350
> Video camera........ 280
> Mainframe comp. 160
> Semiconductor 100
> Submarine.............115
> Colour TV...............16
> CNC machine...........11
> Luxury car...............10
> Standard car..............5
> Cargo ship.................1
>
>
> These figures are a decade old. Anyone have some updated numbers? More
> products rated?
where are those numbers invented from ? who made the calculus? an american
list ,eventually valid also in Phillipines : certainly NOT.
By wich kind of relative values do you consider the value of a fallen plane
or a friction burned Mir station ? Or a sinking oil tanker?
I suppose you could include the value added , humane one, to each scrap of
WTC "GOOD JAPANESE QUALITY" metal sold to China,( No Pittsburgh steel
there), as it happened in Berlin to each stone of the Wall.
Did you consider the value added to art pieces? to designed buildings, like
the Eiffel tower or the Atomium in Bruxelles, who should also have gone to
scrap so many years ago ?
(btw just wondering : was the liberty statue in NY designed to stay , also,
for so many years or not ?or was she constructed with the idea of a possible
demolition ? like the eiffel tower or the atomium ?)
Is good design adding more value to common objects ?
is a too good design the reason for the survival of some objects designed to
be destructed like those two ?
or is a symbolic value more important? like the value of an implosed old
stadium in some place of the USA?
The value of any object considered now important could have been considered
nihil when made. who tought Bauhaus or Art nouveau buildings would have NOW
so enormous $$$ or artistic value, if many were destroyed in the era(s)
between their construction and the more recent interest in those ?
the value of the objects we construct/design doesn't depend only on the
material aspect we see at first sight, like in the prior list.
Value shoudn't be the mere capitalistically overdevelopped result of human
activity.
I prefer the warmth of an old wood stove to the unsmoken/ing atomic energy
emanating from some electric heater. the future of our world relies more in
rediscovering important values (scrap re-sellers never forget that) in very
common objects. meaby we should all just try to reconsider basic ones.
like recycle,bicycle. Some greenish moment, here.
?¼?