From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 22:15:31 MDT
--- -randy <cryofan@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
> It would seem that media coverage of Big Business,
> American Style has
> obliterated memories of how most businesses here
> used to be built, and
> how they often still are in the 3rd world. How
> about just a bunch of
> working stiffs scraping up 20K buy-in expenses + 4K
> first run
> operational expenses and buying into a ship that can
> carry cargo
> across the ocean?
Businesses of the past did not have to compete with
modern, more efficient shipping. And at least my own
experience with 3rd world industries is that they
exist because they can - they don't have to be the
same people year to year; if one biz tanks, another
pops up with the same old scheme, having learned
nothing from its failed predecessors. (Though,
sometimes, unable even to be aware of said
predecessors, given the lack of communications and
records.) Same with 3rd world governments. And when
they break out of that mindset and start learning,
well...just look at South Africa, for example.
Western-style Big Business is known around the world
in part because such businesses last long enough to
become known around the world.
> Yes, these people would live aboard the ship, many
> of them. Maybe they
> cannot afford another home. Oh, the shame of it! I
> have intimiated
> that people may exist who are
> actually--gasp--unrich!
Unrich is sustainable. Negative income stream is not
sustainable.
> >If the latter,
> >container ships do that much better,
> >so you'd rapidly
> >find yourself outpriced.
>
> Profits would be less, but why would that shut them
> out of business?
> They would have no payroll to meet.....
The workers onboard would not want to save for
retirement? Or send money to support their
potentially-just-as-unrich families? And let's not
forget food, fuel, and other supplies. Expenses are
not zero, and unless you charged high enough rates
that
few if any companies would ship with you (why? What
advantage would you offer them that justifies even a
penny more per ton?), you'd probably find these
expenses eating up profits and then some - even at the
rates that more optimized cargo shippers, with far
less
expenses per ton shipped (and possibly faster shipping
to boot, which both reduces expenses and raises the
rates they can charge), can make hefty profits at.
> >But the former might be a
> >viable niche, especially if it was anchored just
> >outside US waters (to be able to move inside, if
> >non-US pirates came a-calling; possibly near the
> >border to Canadian waters if said pirates were the
> >type the US wouldn't act against). It'd still be a
> >carrier of sorts, just that most of its child craft
> >would be watercraft instead of aircraft.
>
> I doubt that an aircraft carrier with 500 men aboard
> would be at much
> danger from pirates.
500 men. Given as it would be Extropians we're
talking
about, let's be generous over normal civilians and
assume that fully half of them are armed and as
effective at combat as an average police officer.
Now put them against 200 or so heavily armed folk
(they
know this is a big target; they'll bring friends) who
regularly train in combat (Marine equivalent - bottom
of the barrel for US Marines, perhaps, but still
better
trained and more aggressive), with long experience in
boarding and securing ships.
Perhaps the crew of the Extro 1 could repel the
boarders, or even turn the tides and capture their
boats. I'd assign it less than 50% odds, but more
than
10%. But I think it likely that there would be
significant loss of life on both sides no matter what.
Better just to run.
Of course, the odds go up if the Extro 1 crew invests
seriously in high-tech weapons that (of the two sides
in this hypothetical conflict) only they know even
exist - browse DARPA's "less-than-lethal" projects and
select your favorite stunner, for instance. But note
the price tags - and, as you said, a number of these
people would be unrich.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 22:28:28 MDT