kenhoeve

boost junky you are distorting the context of much of what I say. Using line by lines to make it easy for you to write is lame, especially when you use questions as rebuttal. I've made my point sufficiently, feel free to make yours using your own words. I think you are agreeing with me on a few items and you are not understanding my point on some others.

You are a pure objectivist in the Rand vein. Nothing wrong with that.

No way I can distill all of my thoughts on this clearly in one post but I'll try to start off with the fundamentals and hope maybe they evolve in a few posts. First off, I am way up there in the tax categories. Chuck and I are probably close. I don't like to be taxed carte blanche, but at the same time I don't like to see the de facto underclass continually expanded by virtue of our economics. I see it from both sides. If some of you would read some economics books that view it from both sides, you might actually have something valuable to offer but most just repeat their ideas based on two items... the present state of affairs, and their idea of what is fair, or Fox news. Probably the largest fundamental problem with taxation and a capitalist economy is that the idea of taxation and the idea of finite resources eventually compete. No one here has even broached this. The primary conflict is that for an increasing population, or economy, the government needs to collect an increasing tax base. However, with a finite resource base of labor and natural resources, the only possibility of growth in a market based economy is for efficiencies to exist on a continual basis. Efficiencies is a euphemism for decreased cost in any case. So, you are trying to increase your tax base but at the same time you are trying to decrease costs for a unit of production. The ultimate result of course being that the means of production, labor and resources, are apportioned less capital, and yet the beneficiarys of this production must be taxed at a higher rate to compensate for the efficiency. I personally don't think this paradox is all that hard to realize. That being said... I think we would all agree that the truth in a capitalist economy is that competition breeds wealth. Competition includes innovation of every kind to include manufacturing, invention, etc. These must exist in order to motivate those of greater resource to create progress, but also to ensure that in a world of many sovereign markets that the distribution of wealth rewards those most who create progress. Eventually it is unavoidable that those who create progress must continually exploit the means of production in order to achieve the result worthy of motivation. But now we focus on one sovereign entity. Let's say the United States. Absent the event of revolutionary progress, for example the industrial age or the digital age, there is no choice but to have the efficiencies applied continually to a lesser class, whether it is on shore or off shore. This idea is that unless a completely new resource or innovation is being tapped that benefits all as a result of dramatic resource comsumption reduction overall, then the efficiency must be expressed and distributed while maintaining motivation for those who would seek it in competition. There you have it. Now we have increasing wealth disproportionately but also a disproportionate feeling toward taxation. The disparity ultimately is concerned with relative standard of living, but is affected by non obligatory costs incurred by the operation of government. The upper 50% expect a certain standard of living based on a long history of economic evolution that has relied on production efficiency while relying on the lower 50% providing this with a lower standard of living. The ultimate question is how that standard of living is distributed via what I would say are the basics of general wealth... food, housing, healthcare, education, and luxuries. All the while considering the necessary tax base is ever increasing. The balance then ultimately becomes consumption vs. perceived standard of living due to the fact that we are currently taxed on a system that is arbitrarily set toward standard of living without accounting for overall consumption. Progressive tax is based on arbitrary standard of living. A consumption tax would be based on a standard of living that is either created by the economy, or limited by the tolerance of those who are subjected to it. The idea of civil fiduciary responsibility is far more complicated than any of the pedestrian ideas floated here. Especially considering the global economy and the governmental responsibilities that are required to secure an economy. Don't buy the Chomski version, don't buy the Fox news version. Think long term and you will realize that natural resource eventually trumps all, and in the meantime tax is just philosophical.

That is field and stream worthy, well done.

You technically need to get a bike fit to determine your appropriate stem length. If you want to do it yourself, first determine your correct fore-aft saddle position by plumbing the front of your knee to the pedal spindle at mid stroke(3 o' clock). Then use a stem that places a slight bend in your elbows while riding fully extended to the hoods. Your experience and flexibility will weigh on the stem measurement.

hahaha I was just going to mention something about death machine.

yeah, carbon tubulars. for me, climbing wheels only but I could ride them full time. I only weigh a buck fiddy five though. There are few things quite as satisfying as a reliable wheelset, I'm with you on that.

now here are some wheels... i posted this once, but should have been in this thread anyway...

So easy to be deceived from a distance... hot! :lol:

Wheels are a little pedestrian, but those are some super classy bikes. Moots, mmmmmmmmm. I wanna lick the welds.

That wasn't too far from me and know guys on that club. He will lose his medical license if convicted. It seems some road ragers don't understand that messing with a car and with someone on a bike is fundamentally different, it is very easy to kill someone on a bike with your vehicle. Lucky in fact that this guy didn't. I have never had any serious problems here in Orange County, we have very large bike lanes so don't have to mix with traffic flow much. My wife rides and I will probably have her start carrying mace after she was heckled on her way home from work this week, and I might too. The whole incident is a very sad commentary on the state of our society.

here's the roadie record, carbon, rolf prima vigor

This bike is for sale because I continually take huge drops and either destroy a few body joints or bash in the wheels and a few components. Make no mistake, this setup has been worked for all it's worth. Lucky for you I just rebuilt the fork that has now been blown for the 3rd time. The Fox rear shock is bombproof. The Mavic wheels are strong but they are maintenance friggin hogs. Granted they stay true, but I spend more time scooping crap out of this rear hub than I do assuring my wife her thighs are not fat. Caveat emptor.

ANY saddle will hurt. Save your money and get used to it. No amount of gel will save you, if you are really serious about it then just wipe your nethers with some chamois cream you wuss. You can massage someone else's "in betweens" with it when you are done. :lol:

that workshop is getting me all misty eyed. :)