Vintage vs. Modern, a study with (not so) surprising results...?

[Torment Leaves Scars]

All true. Most of the time when somebody says "They don't make them like they used to!" I can only reply "Thank God!"

I'm sure there are exceptions here and there, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment what they'd be. Maybe McDonald's/Burger King burgers and fries?

The car analogy is a good one, though. I, too, had much experience with the old Detroit big iron, and while there's a lot to be said for the neck-snapping off-the-line torque of a big block, they had no staying power and the vehicles those engines were in were junk. Terrible suspensions, brakes, steering - the list is long, and made driving those things positively frightening. The cheapest cars you can buy today could run circles around any of those old muscle cars handling-wise, and for a few dollars more you could best most of them in the quarter. They're just a lot smoother now, so it doesn't feel like a ground-pounder when you put the pedal to the metal. But, 4 to 6 seconds later, you're doing 60+.

Agreed on the fries...but what about Oreos with the trans-fat we've all come to know and love?  :toothy12:

 

[Cagey]

I loves me some trans fats. And I'm getting sick and tired of the state trying tell me what I can eat/drink/smoke and where/when I can do it. It's none of their damn business. Those that are enamored of the nanny state can move to Russia if that's the lifestyle they'd prefer.

 

[AprioriMark]

I loves me some trans fats. And I'm getting sick and tired of the state trying tell me what I can eat/drink/smoke and where/when I can do it. It's none of their damn business. Those that are enamored of the nanny state can move to Russia if that's the lifestyle they'd prefer.

Why not legalize all drugs and make suicide legal then, too?  I'm not disagreeing, I am just of two minds here.  1) People are generally too stupid to live without regulation.  2) Live and let die.

-Mark

 

[swarfrat]

I've always wonder just what the purpose of the baked apple turnovers at McD's and everyone else is.

I mean you're already at McD's. Its still a pile of sugar and carbs you should be avoiding if you were trying to eat healthy at McD's. So why steal the joy of a fried apple pie from me?

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

I loves me some trans fats. And I'm getting sick and tired of the state trying tell me what I can eat/drink/smoke and where/when I can do it. It's none of their damn business. Those that are enamored of the nanny state can move to Russia if that's the lifestyle they'd prefer.

Yep, you and me both.  If I wanna eat trans-fats, that's my right.  My ingestion of trans-fats is not impacting anyone else's health but my own. 

I've always wonder just what the purpose of the baked apple turnovers at McD's and everyone else is.

I mean you're already at McD's. Its still a pile of sugar and carbs you should be avoiding if you were trying to eat healthy at McD's. So why steal the joy of a fried apple pie from me?

Exactly.  I never understood why you could get a salad at Wendy's.  :icon_scratch:  Funny thing is their salads are actually WORSE for you than their burgers!  :doh:

I loves me some trans fats. And I'm getting sick and tired of the state trying tell me what I can eat/drink/smoke and where/when I can do it. It's none of their damn business. Those that are enamored of the nanny state can move to Russia if that's the lifestyle they'd prefer.

Why not legalize all drugs and make suicide legal then, too?  I'm not disagreeing, I am just of two minds here.  1) People are generally too stupid to live without regulation.  2) Live and let die.

-Mark

Getting back to the "I should be able to do it if I want to," sure, I agree with that, but the problem is that someone's drug use can affect another person's life.  What happens when that inebriated person gets behind the wheel of a car?  :help:

 

[Jusatele]

All true. Most of the time when somebody says "They don't make them like they used to!" I can only reply "Thank God!"

I'm sure there are exceptions here and there, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment what they'd be. Maybe McDonald's/Burger King burgers and fries?

The car analogy is a good one, though. I, too, had much experience with the old Detroit big iron, and while there's a lot to be said for the neck-snapping off-the-line torque of a big block, they had no staying power and the vehicles those engines were in were junk. Terrible suspensions, brakes, steering - the list is long, and made driving those things positively frightening. The cheapest cars you can buy today could run circles around any of those old muscle cars handling-wise, and for a few dollars more you could best most of them in the quarter. They're just a lot smoother now, so it doesn't feel like a ground-pounder when you put the pedal to the metal. But, 4 to 6 seconds later, you're doing 60+.

what I love about this rant is it is so true
a 63 vette went on the auction on TV the other day for just under 200 gs
now let us look at what he bought,
he got a car he cannot afford to drive because of the insurance would kill him, also there are no body parts made for it except aftermarket so he could never get it back to Factory original if wrecked.
The car was not known for being a track car, instead it was known for ground pounding performance, and want to know something, the average Honda built last year has a suspension that would outperform the 63 Vette in every situation you could put it in. As far as engine, the 63 V8 chevy built was lucky to be able to go 100,000 miles with out needing a rebuild but a modern Hundia will go over twice that and still have good power. And a far as comfort, forget it they were never made for comfort.
So for more money than the average American makes in 6 years what did he get? A hunk of metal heavily sought after by people who can afford them so they can brag they own one and put less than 300 miles on the clock a year, remember any signs of use make the car worth less.
So you go out and buy a 62 Strat and what do you get? Are you going to use it on stage every night like the 2011 model you can buy today? When you look onstage and see that artist playing the aged out Strat he is spouting is his 63, do you think it is or an copy of his 63 his tech built so he can keep the 63 for recording.
I say sell your old guitars for as much as you can get for them, and buy/make new ones. I sold my 62 Tele, bought 2 guitars and built one. Who do you think is ahead, me or the guy who got a clapped out 62 with a cracked body?

 

[Cagey]

Also all true, except I don't think a '63 Vette's engine could go 100K before needing a rebuild. More like about 60K, if you handled it with kid gloves, said your prayers every night, lived in a state with reasonable weather, and led a charmed life. But once you got to that point, you needed at least water, fuel and oil pumps, valve guides and a reseat, piston rings, cylinder honing, a timing chain, and maybe main bearings. That's not counting normal wear parts and all the rubber. In other words, pretty much a full tear-down. In 1963 if you got 100K out of an engine, you were looking for the phone number of the publishers of the Guinness Book of World Records <grin>

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

I gotta disagree about those classic motors not holding up.  Sure, some were turds but that hasn't changed.  Look at Chrysler's engines of the 80s, 90s, and even the more recent ones which are FINALLY being shelved.

My 402ci in my 71 El Camino ran like a champ.  That thing had over 198k on it when I sold it.  It hadn't been previously rebuilt prior to when I got it.  A guy down the street from my parents has had no fewer than four Caprices with 400s in them, each of which lasted to at least the 225k mark.

...And then there was my dad's 350ci Chevelle, which was an absolute lemon.

 

[stubhead]

Yep, you and me both.  If I wanna eat trans-fats, that's my right.  My ingestion of trans-fats is not impacting anyone else's health but my own. 

Not to pick on you in particular, but this attitude starts running into bumps when you look at where the health care dollars go to - a huge proportion of the money is spent trying to keep a small proportion of the population alive, namely very sick and very old people, and if you're paying health insurance, it's not likely to be closely related to your own decisions, if at all. It might seem like a great "deal" for someone who's drank themselves into dire need for a liver transplant - and the sickest people do shoot to the top of list, regardless of cause. Age is somewhat factored in, but that's small consolation to the parents of a kid who dies while waiting for a liver, because all the drunks used up this year's supply. Smoking cigarettes kills 400,000 people a year in America, but sickens many, many more - and YOU are paying for those oxygen tanks you see the oldsters carting around. Well over 90% of the people with emphysema did it to themselves, just as over 90% of cirrhosis, pancreatitis, and pancreatic & liver cancer "victims" did it with hootch. There are other causes of all these - industrial chemicals, printers & plastic workers get the weird cancers, but regardless, health problems cost money. 

It's a sticky mess, I sure don't have any answers. But I doubt many of the people eating trans fats, smoking like chimneys and drinking like fish are going to opt out of Medicare and refuse operations simply because their habits are what causes them to need a disproportionate share of health care.

 

[AutoBat]

I'm liking the 63 Corvette references, whether or not they're accurate.

[me=AutoBat]has one.[/me]

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

A vintage guitar is 50 years old.  A vintage violin is 400 years old.  It's not a sound analogy.  400 years from now let's play a top of the line guitar from today.  It will be a turd, and that doesn't necessarily include being stored in an attic and surviving 2 World Wars and several revolutions.

 

[NQbass7]

Yep, you and me both.  If I wanna eat trans-fats, that's my right.  My ingestion of trans-fats is not impacting anyone else's health but my own. 

Not to pick on you in particular, but this attitude starts running into bumps when you look at where the health care dollars go to - a huge proportion of the money is spent trying to keep a small proportion of the population alive, namely very sick and very old people, and if you're paying health insurance, it's not likely to be closely related to your own decisions, if at all.

Smoking reduces lifetime healthcare costs, and I wouldn't be surprised if unhealthy diets did too. The people who end up getting a lot of money spent on them are (as you said) older people who made it past all the other hurdles - lung cancer from smoking, heart attacks from blocked arteries, car accidents from reckless driving, etc. Most of the things that people point to and say "but they'll make healthcare costs go up" actually have a net negative effect on healthcare costs, because they cause people to die younger and therefore accrue lower lifetime healthcare costs.

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Yep, you and me both.  If I wanna eat trans-fats, that's my right.  My ingestion of trans-fats is not impacting anyone else's health but my own. 

Not to pick on you in particular, but this attitude starts running into bumps when you look at where the health care dollars go to - a huge proportion of the money is spent trying to keep a small proportion of the population alive, namely very sick and very old people, and if you're paying health insurance, it's not likely to be closely related to your own decisions, if at all. It might seem like a great "deal" for someone who's drank themselves into dire need for a liver transplant - and the sickest people do shoot to the top of list, regardless of cause. Age is somewhat factored in, but that's small consolation to the parents of a kid who dies while waiting for a liver, because all the drunks used up this year's supply. Smoking cigarettes kills 400,000 people a year in America, but sickens many, many more - and YOU are paying for those oxygen tanks you see the oldsters carting around. Well over 90% of the people with emphysema did it to themselves, just as over 90% of cirrhosis, pancreatitis, and pancreatic & liver cancer "victims" did it with hootch. There are other causes of all these - industrial chemicals, printers & plastic workers get the weird cancers, but regardless, health problems cost money. 

It's a sticky mess, I sure don't have any answers. But I doubt many of the people eating trans fats, smoking like chimneys and drinking like fish are going to opt out of Medicare and refuse operations simply because their habits are what causes them to need a disproportionate share of health care.

Yeah, but how far do you wanna read into it?  I agree with what you're saying but all I'm saying is nobody's safety but my own is affected by my irresponsibility of eating whatever I want.  People can claim smoking takes lives, and I'm sure it does, yet George Burns lived to be 100 and always had a cigar in his mouth...

 

[Cagey]

Yeah, but how far do you wanna read into it?  I agree with what you're saying but all I'm saying is nobody's safety but my own is affected by my irresponsibility of eating whatever I want.  People can claim smoking takes lives, and I'm sure it does, yet George Burns lived to be 100 and always had a cigar in his mouth...

I don't think he's saying anybody's safety is necessarily affected by what you do to yourself, outside of the very real risk of harm a drinker presents while driving. What he's saying is that many people's well-being is affected because they're more heavily taxed via higher insurance costs, regulation or actual tax rates to pay for the irresponsible activities of a few. That's hard-earned money that gets confiscated and redistributed to pay for the dramatically higher costs of taking care of people who are in and of themselves careless, money that could be used to enrich the earner's life and the lives of those he does business with.

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Yeah, but how far do you wanna read into it?  I agree with what you're saying but all I'm saying is nobody's safety but my own is affected by my irresponsibility of eating whatever I want.  People can claim smoking takes lives, and I'm sure it does, yet George Burns lived to be 100 and always had a cigar in his mouth...

I don't think he's saying anybody's safety is necessarily affected by what you do to yourself, outside of the very real risk of harm a drinker presents while driving. What he's saying is that many people's well-being is affected because they're more heavily taxed via higher insurance costs, regulation or actual tax rates to pay for the irresponsible activities of a few. That's hard-earned money that gets confiscated and redistributed to pay for the dramatically higher costs of taking care of people who are in and of themselves careless, money that could be used to enrich the earner's life and the lives of those he does business with.

Right, but where's it end?  Are we all supposed to live in bubbles and not venture outside our homes for the risk something may happen?  People have heart attacks and liver failures all the time, some which aren't attributed to any sorts of behavior at all.  Sometimes it's just a basic case of, "Sh*t Happens."

 

[stubhead]

Yeah, I'm absolutely not trying to pick an individual element, but one thing's for sure - as more and more people attempt to "retire" out of a system which has (relatively) fewer and fewer people paying into it, it's only going to get stranger. And particularly so because many of the people retiring were paying a lot into Social Security because they had good-paying jobs, and they're expecting full benefits - even if they also have a nice juicy nest egg set aside. (All dollar amounts equalized for value of course). You don't want to penalize old people because they were smart enough to save, but a huge swath of those good-paying jobs are flat out gone - so Junior might well ask why he needs to work 3 crappy minimum-wage jobs just to barely survive, forget about having kids, buying a house etc., especially while paying 40% in taxes (because every time you cut taxes on the rich, it's an increase on everyone else.) And Gramps is going on cruises & golfing away the golden years....

It's going to get ugly & vicious, is what it is. I don't think for a second that any bloviating politician anywheres actually knows, or even cares, that so-and-so is going to go "broke" in 20 years or that such-and-such fund is in any way predictable - our entire financial system is a gentleman's hallucinatory agreement, it's just a bunch of numbers in computers, leveraged so many times that it may come as a very rude shock to some people that things like arable land and water and food may become quite important again as a measure of "wealth." And no politician can ever hope to get elected, ever, if they even hint around the idea that a closed system like, umm, Planet Earth can run into some supply problems when there are 7 billion people sucking up resources better suited to support perhaps 2 billion. Is there a prize for MAXIMUM THREAD DRIFT?

 

[Cagey]

Right, but where's it end?  Are we all supposed to live in bubbles and not venture outside our homes for the risk something may happen?  People have heart attacks and liver failures all the time, some which aren't attributed to any sorts of behavior at all.  Sometimes it's just a basic case of, "Sh*t Happens."

Depends. Where do you want it to end? Or, more to the point, where would the majority who have to bear the cost like it to end? Certainly physical infirmities, disease, and accidents occur without any conscious effort on the victim's part and compassion dictates that we help them, but it's also true that we know that certain deliberate behaviors are causative. So, would you like your taxes to increase to the point where you can barely afford to live so that the bulk of what you earn can go to pay for those who deliberately harm themselves through excessive eating/drinking/smoking/carelessness?

Some people cry about being forced to wear motorcycle helmets or seatbelts in cars, but those same people would bitch up a storm if they got sent the bill for keeping a vegetable on life support year in/year out after some free spirit got his skull crushed or neck broken in a relatively minor accident because he wasn't wearing any head protection or restraint.

I don't like being told what to do, either. But, I do recognize that my actions can have a societal impact. So, there has to be some balance.

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Right, but where's it end?  Are we all supposed to live in bubbles and not venture outside our homes for the risk something may happen?  People have heart attacks and liver failures all the time, some which aren't attributed to any sorts of behavior at all.  Sometimes it's just a basic case of, "Sh*t Happens."

Depends. Where do you want it to end? Or, more to the point, where would the majority who have to bear the cost like it to end? Certainly physical infirmities, disease, and accidents occur without any conscious effort on the victim's part and compassion dictates that we help them, but it's also true that we know that certain deliberate behaviors are causative. So, would you like your taxes to increase to the point where you can barely afford to live so that the bulk of what you earn can go to pay for those who deliberately harm themselves through excessive eating/drinking/smoking/carelessness?

Some people cry about being forced to wear motorcycle helmets or seatbelts in cars, but those same people would bitch up a storm if they got sent the bill for keeping a vegetable on life support year in/year out after some free spirit got his skull crushed or neck broken in a relatively minor accident because he wasn't wearing any head protection or restraint.

I don't like being told what to do, either. But, I do recognize that my actions can have a societal impact. So, there has to be some balance.

Right, but see, there's always that "loophole."  "Steroids cause brain cancer."  Is there any scientific proof of this?  No.  "Smoking marijuana leads to other drugs."  Funny.  I smoked more than my fair share years ago and not once did I ever try anything else.  :icon_scratch:

As for taxes, taxes are going to increase no matter what.  People do things deliberately every day.  Look at the welfare system.  How many people push out babies just to get additional benefits?  People have always searched for ways to cheat the system and now that the economy is so bad more and more people are doing it.

 

[Cagey]

I could argue this all day long and well into the night, but I suspect we're moving far afield of the topic at hand and rapidly heading for political wrangling, so I'm going to let it go <grin>

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

I could argue this all day long and well into the night, but I suspect we're moving far afield of the topic at hand and rapidly heading for political wrangling, so I'm going to let it go <grin>

Yeah, how did "Vintage vs. Modern" turn into a thread about healthcare?  :icon_scratch: