This list is only of use when looked at as a list of relative values.
Another way to look at it is; how much human brain power is added to a lump
of steel or silicon to make a discrete item. The dollar value attempts to
quantify this.
>> 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
>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?
Another way to look at it is; how much human brain power is added to a lump
of steel or silicon to make a discrete item. The dollar value attempts to
quantify this.
>> 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
>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?