If we hadn't had a standing army, would Japan have attacked?
Japan invaded a number of countries which didn't have large standing armies. For example, the Philipines, Korea, and a number of small island nations. I wager that if the US had a larger standing army at the time, it wouldn't have been attacked.
The Pearl Harbor attack was a gamble to take out the US's existing carrier fleet under the assumption that the US wouldn't be able to easily replace it. That would have given Japan a substantial military advantage that it could use to keep the US out of its conquests.
But if a Pearl Harbor attack didn't have a chance of removing enough carriers (say the US had a similar excess of carriers as present day), then they wouldn't have done that. I think that would have scaled back their ambitions greatly.
Taken in that light, that explains much of the crazy stunts government pulls today.
For recent presidential examples, there's G. W. Bush's "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" after 9/11 and Obama's pointed insults against various post-colonial powers and their representatives (particularly, the UK).
I don't think the NSA stuff counts. I bet that was a usual case of unintended consequence. They weren't expecting the program to become public knowledge and thus, did things that are now causing them some inconvenience. That sort of craziness breeds best in the shadows.
The story in your link spins a great tale, but they don't actually mention anything about what TEPCO and the Japanese nuclear industry and regulatory agencies might have done or not done with respect to Fukushima aside from one very recent study. For example:
One year later, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that the combined earthquake and tsunami that precipitated the Fukushima accident was not an âoeact of Godâ or Japanâ(TM)s bad luck. The potential risks of tsunamis to nuclear power plants are well understood and a set of international standards has been developed to mitigate those risks.
Yet, despite Japanâ(TM)s history of tsunamis, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, Japanâ(TM)s nuclear regulator, did not apply those standards. It failed to review studies of tsunami risks performed by the plantâ(TM)s owner, Tokyo Electric Power, known as Tepco. It also failed to ensure the development of tsunami-modeling tools compliant with international standards.
Sounds bad until you realize that tsunami aren't "well understood" and the authors are just making shit up about the certainty of "international standards" in this area. Also, TEPCO doesn't have a responsibility to meet international standards. It has a responsibility to meet Japanese standards. Just because it didn't adhere to "international standards" doesn't mean that it didn't adhere to equivalent Japanese standards.
Tepco was also negligent. It knew of geological evidence that the region surrounding the plant had been periodically flooded about once every thousand years. In 2008, it performed computer simulations suggesting that a repeat of the devastating earthquake of 869 would lead to a tsunami that would inundate the plant. Yet it did not adequately follow up on either of these leads.
2008 is only three years before 2011. Keep that in mind when you consider the European response which is discussed next.
European states have recognized this. Their regulators have subjected 124 reactors to âoestress tests.â These confirmed the value of the plant design improvements ordered after the Blayais incident. Whatâ(TM)s more, they identified further upgrades to plantsâ(TM) physical defenses that are needed in order to prevent unexpected external hazards from causing serious damage. France alone will require its 58 reactors to make improvements that might cost $10 billion.
So the supposedly highly responsive Europeans identified a whole lot of things to do, but haven't actually done them yet despite having 13 years (the linked article is from 2012) to work on it. They get a pass despite being no further along than the Japanese. That means the Europeans haven't applied this "international standard" either. So we have one group that gets blamed for not following standards (that incidentally they weren't supposed to follow) because they have an accident and another group, does the same thing, but they didn't have an accident and thus, don't get blamed.
This is the sort of crap that has been going on ever since the accident though the agenda driving it is a little different than usual. It's shameless, irresponsible scapegoating.
Non sequitur means "doesn't follow". It doesn't apply to my paragraph because I was noting the absence of evidence for your claim that certain programs were "obligations".
Ok, a store/government has no "obligation" to sell you something. Is the store the boss of you now? No. You are the customer. Customers are the employers of stores, for without customers the store would not generate revenue, and would not survive. Likewise, corporations are the employers of governments.
Here's an example of a non sequitur. You equate the customer/store relationship with employer/employee relationship without even the briefest justification. And as many have noted, you can always no matter how short-sighted it might be, outlaw corporations yet still keep raking in revenue.
This is false. Employees are less mobile than employers.
Proof through assertion doesn't work. All an employee in the US needs to move is a means of transportation for the amount of gear they happen to have. A rental truck works well and even for cross country moves, it's around $1000-2000 in cost. You can also get an old pickup truck for about that much. It costs a lot more than that just to change the state or country of an established business. And you would have to move both physical assets of the business and any employees that you're taking along. If you are planning to hire at the other end of the trip, then that's another expense.
In a capitalist environment, over time there should be LESS people employed as we find efficiencies.
No, that is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow from capitalist environments that demand for labor should decline. After all, if there's a lot of unemployed people, then you could just start a business and get cheap, high productivity labor. You're leaving money on the ground by not doing that.
And if we look at actual capitalism environments, we see growing demand for labor contrary to your premise.
So initial premise is wrong. Thus, the rest of your post becomes irrelevant.
Here again you are biased toward competition. Competition is enforced by globalization. Globalization is a political choice, not a law of nature. If People want to have cooperation (e.g.: social welfare), they need some boundaries in which competition leaves room for cooperation.
What are the alternatives here? I see you mention social welfare as an example of cooperation, but it fails in two ways - by creating tragedy of the commons situations (with the usual inept fixes for them) and zero sum games (social welfare is usually created by impairing others either via regulation or the seizure of resources).
Second, I find it interesting that you are advocating protectionism in order to protect a fragile system. Competitive systems are naturally robust. Your social welfare system is a hot house flower that withers if the conditions aren't exactly so. What's the point of embracing a system that simply won't be around very long?
GDP grows faster than population, that is excellent news. But how does it tells us about how many people are employed? This was your point, IIRC
No, my point was to address your concerns about point 3, that worker wages weren't increasing. Worker wages normally track GDP per capita (the figure I actually quoted). It's unusual for them not to. You only have experience with one or more developed world economies that are experiencing some degree of wage decline despite a modest increase in GDP per capita (due to labor globalization and those social welfare policies which make developed world labor more uncompetitive). The developing world economies don't have this problem.
On point 3 I am sure it is wrong because you look as absolute value of wages without taking inflation into account: if we consider the percentage of GDP that goes to workers in first world countries, it has only lowered in the last decades.
That's because once again, first world labor is competing unsuccessfully with developing world labor. If one looks at it globally, you see a global increase in wages.
It's foolish to extrapolate from the developed world and its self-inflicted labor inefficiencies and obstacles to some productivity oversupply crisis. We wouldn't make similar claims for some failing business (say for example, General Motors) that is steadily losing market share to more nimble competitors. We would just say that the business is failing to compete.
I have no numbers for third world countries, but I doubt the situation is better.
You would be wrong here. For example, Hans Rosling has given a number of talks on this issue. His relevant observation is that every country, whether poor or rich now, has followed the same trajectory of increasing wealth per capita over time with the same general features (such as declining female fertility as the population gets wealthier).
Right, school produces educated people.
RIght. And one sees that the students are doing most of the work.
In that light, there are a large number of odd voting peculiarities that favored Romney in the Republican primaries over every other candidate (large precincts by vote heavily favored Romney usually at the expense of one single other candidate which was usual Ron Paul, but could also be Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich). That effect persisted even when attempts were made to control for degree of urbanization. I think it's some sort of fraud myself.
The paper I linked to calculates that Romney received roughly 1.2 million votes by this peculiarity. That's more than a 10% boost to his number of votes (10.0 million). Plus, he wouldn't have performed as well in the early primaries and caucuses (for example, IMHO placing a distant third in the Iowa caucus behind Rick Santorum and Ron Paul rather than a close second place behind Santorum) and tying with Ron Paul in New Hampshire. That sort of weak start might have even damned his campaign.
If you folks on the right had asked one of us *liberals* back in '08, we'd have told you Obama wasn't one of us.
I have no idea what a "*liberal*" is supposed to be. But I am familiar with the game "Who's Not a Liberal". If people spent as much time doing stuff as they spend decreeing who's not a liberal, they'd be dangerous.
If Mexico invaded tomorrow and took over the US, how do you think the lives of the homeless in San Francisco would change?
Well, I suppose almost everyone is "rich" in the sense that they have something to lose, if a foreign power were to come in and take it. Still seems to me to be a mighty strange argument since almost everyone would be by your standard "rich".
Begs the question is used appropriately here as the logical fallacy of that name. You can read the rather excessive discussion throughout this thread. If you still wish to collapse into a apoplectic fit, please link to the youtube video so that we can enjoy the cruel results of our collective efforts.
Very true, and at the same time, worker productivity has increased, which means they produce more wealth. At the end of the road is an oversupply crisis. This leads us back to my initial post: we will need a way to pay people for nothing.
If we looking at what actually is going on, we see 1) considerable increase in labor productivity (which is predicted by your claim), 2) a vast increase in the number of people employed (which isn't really predicted by your claim), and 3) a substantial rise in mean/median wages globally (which runs counter to your claim). Given that we aren't heading to this "end of the road", what is the point of making that claim?
Instead, I see no reason to pay people for nothing.
Because children are the school's product
No they aren't. The school doesn't make children. The school system makes educated adults. And that labor is mostly shouldered by the students of the school system.
Why? That's a cheap way to play crazy person. The ploy is to appear crazy and erratic so that any foe in a MAD game doesn't know how far they can push before you escalate irrationally.
That helps demonstrate how corporations are the employers here. Capital is less mobile than money (currency), but it is still MORE mobile than governments. It is much harder for Obama and his administration to "move" to China and become its government.
This is just a non sequitur, especially since employers are less mobile than their employees.
Government does have an obligation to provide services in return. H1B visas, right-to-work laws, copyright enforcement, military industrial complex to secure oil, etc.
Where is that obligation again? You haven't mentioned it. It's like claiming that a store has an obligation to sell you something. They don't. Or a driver has an obligation to read your roadside billboard. They don't. An interaction with society is not by default an obligation.
Government decrees on taxes is meaningless as corporations can just pack up and leave (or even just close down, like how Hostess recently did to their employees).
Pack up and leave at considerable cost.
So again, thanks for agreeing.
Well, if you were agreeing with me, you'd have to write something different first.
You have a bias here, you consider competition is some kind of natural law that we cannot spare.
Sure, you can spare it. You'll just reap a lot of unpleasant unintended consequences when you neglect competition.
But while People sovereignty has been neutralized, it can still be reactivated.
It hasn't been neutralized. But we need to keep in mind that the global labor force has expanded several fold in the last half century. Increase in supply of labor means a decrease in price of labor. This can be and is to a degree countered by a substantial increase in the demand for labor (via business creation and expansion), but that's an avenue where the developed world has been notably self-destructive.
Did you notice that children at school do not produce goods or service?
No, I haven't noticed this. They're producing educated, productive members of society. And if they really were producing nothing of value, then why do we have them in schools?
The founding fathers never foresaw global megacorporations with concentrations of wealth and power that exceeds that of some actual countries.
And the obvious counterexample to that claim is the East India Company, which was a global megacorporation of the 18th century. Recall that one of the defining events of the US revolution was the Boston Tea Party which was a protest against a tea tax and trade monopoly which was imposed to assist the East India Company. The tea that they happened to dump was East India tea.
And at the time, the East India Company had power far beyond any modern corporation or crime organization with a valuable opium trade with China (often illegally), a standing army in India, and considerable backing from the English government who saw them as a tool to increase English power in India and elsewhere.
So the founding fathers had a working example of such a global megacorporation in their time and had already crossed paths with it.
The USA on the other hand has pretty much no welfare system, if you lose your job you are lucky to get a few weeks of unemployment benefits before you are tossed to the wolves.
26 weeks is more than a few weeks. And there's a temporary extension currently in place which stretched that out to about 9-14 weeks of additional payments.
This was the part I was wondering about. How long would it take to find or make a template for an object you wanted? I guess if you can search by part number, then it'll be relatively fast and accurate. But even in that case, it might be a lot of work to find those part numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
If we hadn't had a standing army, would Japan have attacked?
Japan invaded a number of countries which didn't have large standing armies. For example, the Philipines, Korea, and a number of small island nations. I wager that if the US had a larger standing army at the time, it wouldn't have been attacked.
The Pearl Harbor attack was a gamble to take out the US's existing carrier fleet under the assumption that the US wouldn't be able to easily replace it. That would have given Japan a substantial military advantage that it could use to keep the US out of its conquests.
But if a Pearl Harbor attack didn't have a chance of removing enough carriers (say the US had a similar excess of carriers as present day), then they wouldn't have done that. I think that would have scaled back their ambitions greatly.
So the invaders would take all your DVDs? Your PC, and your big screen TV?
I take it you haven't heard of looting.
Taken in that light, that explains much of the crazy stunts government pulls today.
For recent presidential examples, there's G. W. Bush's "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" after 9/11 and Obama's pointed insults against various post-colonial powers and their representatives (particularly, the UK).
I don't think the NSA stuff counts. I bet that was a usual case of unintended consequence. They weren't expecting the program to become public knowledge and thus, did things that are now causing them some inconvenience. That sort of craziness breeds best in the shadows.
The story in your link spins a great tale, but they don't actually mention anything about what TEPCO and the Japanese nuclear industry and regulatory agencies might have done or not done with respect to Fukushima aside from one very recent study. For example:
One year later, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that the combined earthquake and tsunami that precipitated the Fukushima accident was not an âoeact of Godâ or Japanâ(TM)s bad luck. The potential risks of tsunamis to nuclear power plants are well understood and a set of international standards has been developed to mitigate those risks.
Yet, despite Japanâ(TM)s history of tsunamis, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, Japanâ(TM)s nuclear regulator, did not apply those standards. It failed to review studies of tsunami risks performed by the plantâ(TM)s owner, Tokyo Electric Power, known as Tepco. It also failed to ensure the development of tsunami-modeling tools compliant with international standards.
Sounds bad until you realize that tsunami aren't "well understood" and the authors are just making shit up about the certainty of "international standards" in this area. Also, TEPCO doesn't have a responsibility to meet international standards. It has a responsibility to meet Japanese standards. Just because it didn't adhere to "international standards" doesn't mean that it didn't adhere to equivalent Japanese standards.
Tepco was also negligent. It knew of geological evidence that the region surrounding the plant had been periodically flooded about once every thousand years. In 2008, it performed computer simulations suggesting that a repeat of the devastating earthquake of 869 would lead to a tsunami that would inundate the plant. Yet it did not adequately follow up on either of these leads.
2008 is only three years before 2011. Keep that in mind when you consider the European response which is discussed next.
European states have recognized this. Their regulators have subjected 124 reactors to âoestress tests.â These confirmed the value of the plant design improvements ordered after the Blayais incident. Whatâ(TM)s more, they identified further upgrades to plantsâ(TM) physical defenses that are needed in order to prevent unexpected external hazards from causing serious damage. France alone will require its 58 reactors to make improvements that might cost $10 billion.
So the supposedly highly responsive Europeans identified a whole lot of things to do, but haven't actually done them yet despite having 13 years (the linked article is from 2012) to work on it. They get a pass despite being no further along than the Japanese. That means the Europeans haven't applied this "international standard" either. So we have one group that gets blamed for not following standards (that incidentally they weren't supposed to follow) because they have an accident and another group, does the same thing, but they didn't have an accident and thus, don't get blamed.
This is the sort of crap that has been going on ever since the accident though the agenda driving it is a little different than usual. It's shameless, irresponsible scapegoating.
They *knew* Fukushima was vulnerable. They *knew* exactly what happened was possible.
Where's your evidence?
Non sequitr.
Non sequitur means "doesn't follow". It doesn't apply to my paragraph because I was noting the absence of evidence for your claim that certain programs were "obligations".
Ok, a store/government has no "obligation" to sell you something. Is the store the boss of you now? No. You are the customer. Customers are the employers of stores, for without customers the store would not generate revenue, and would not survive. Likewise, corporations are the employers of governments.
Here's an example of a non sequitur. You equate the customer/store relationship with employer/employee relationship without even the briefest justification. And as many have noted, you can always no matter how short-sighted it might be, outlaw corporations yet still keep raking in revenue.
This is false. Employees are less mobile than employers.
Proof through assertion doesn't work. All an employee in the US needs to move is a means of transportation for the amount of gear they happen to have. A rental truck works well and even for cross country moves, it's around $1000-2000 in cost. You can also get an old pickup truck for about that much. It costs a lot more than that just to change the state or country of an established business. And you would have to move both physical assets of the business and any employees that you're taking along. If you are planning to hire at the other end of the trip, then that's another expense.
In a capitalist environment, over time there should be LESS people employed as we find efficiencies.
No, that is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow from capitalist environments that demand for labor should decline. After all, if there's a lot of unemployed people, then you could just start a business and get cheap, high productivity labor. You're leaving money on the ground by not doing that.
And if we look at actual capitalism environments, we see growing demand for labor contrary to your premise.
So initial premise is wrong. Thus, the rest of your post becomes irrelevant.
There isn't a city in the world the US couldn't hold for a month.
Moscow.
What would you lose? I predict that if the US were to fall, personal property wouldn't be affected.
Personal property for starters. An invader isn't going to respect the laws of the land, or they wouldn't have invaded in the first place.
Here again you are biased toward competition. Competition is enforced by globalization. Globalization is a political choice, not a law of nature. If People want to have cooperation (e.g.: social welfare), they need some boundaries in which competition leaves room for cooperation.
What are the alternatives here? I see you mention social welfare as an example of cooperation, but it fails in two ways - by creating tragedy of the commons situations (with the usual inept fixes for them) and zero sum games (social welfare is usually created by impairing others either via regulation or the seizure of resources).
Second, I find it interesting that you are advocating protectionism in order to protect a fragile system. Competitive systems are naturally robust. Your social welfare system is a hot house flower that withers if the conditions aren't exactly so. What's the point of embracing a system that simply won't be around very long?
GDP grows faster than population, that is excellent news. But how does it tells us about how many people are employed? This was your point, IIRC No, my point was to address your concerns about point 3, that worker wages weren't increasing. Worker wages normally track GDP per capita (the figure I actually quoted). It's unusual for them not to. You only have experience with one or more developed world economies that are experiencing some degree of wage decline despite a modest increase in GDP per capita (due to labor globalization and those social welfare policies which make developed world labor more uncompetitive). The developing world economies don't have this problem.
If you start world war 3 acting crazy you just lost the game.
Well, hasn't happened yet. Point is that whether or not the joke was staged, it probably ended up helping Reagan's negotiating position with the USSR.
Point 2 is more difficult to sort, as we have first to tell if we talk globally or in first world countries.
Globally, of course. Those first world countries aren't isolated from the rest of the world.
And do we talk about the last years or the last decades?
How about since 1300? That long enough for you?
On point 3 I am sure it is wrong because you look as absolute value of wages without taking inflation into account: if we consider the percentage of GDP that goes to workers in first world countries, it has only lowered in the last decades.
That's because once again, first world labor is competing unsuccessfully with developing world labor. If one looks at it globally, you see a global increase in wages.
It's foolish to extrapolate from the developed world and its self-inflicted labor inefficiencies and obstacles to some productivity oversupply crisis. We wouldn't make similar claims for some failing business (say for example, General Motors) that is steadily losing market share to more nimble competitors. We would just say that the business is failing to compete.
I have no numbers for third world countries, but I doubt the situation is better.
You would be wrong here. For example, Hans Rosling has given a number of talks on this issue. His relevant observation is that every country, whether poor or rich now, has followed the same trajectory of increasing wealth per capita over time with the same general features (such as declining female fertility as the population gets wealthier).
Right, school produces educated people.
RIght. And one sees that the students are doing most of the work.
In that light, there are a large number of odd voting peculiarities that favored Romney in the Republican primaries over every other candidate (large precincts by vote heavily favored Romney usually at the expense of one single other candidate which was usual Ron Paul, but could also be Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich). That effect persisted even when attempts were made to control for degree of urbanization. I think it's some sort of fraud myself.
The paper I linked to calculates that Romney received roughly 1.2 million votes by this peculiarity. That's more than a 10% boost to his number of votes (10.0 million). Plus, he wouldn't have performed as well in the early primaries and caucuses (for example, IMHO placing a distant third in the Iowa caucus behind Rick Santorum and Ron Paul rather than a close second place behind Santorum) and tying with Ron Paul in New Hampshire. That sort of weak start might have even damned his campaign.
If you folks on the right had asked one of us *liberals* back in '08, we'd have told you Obama wasn't one of us.
I have no idea what a "*liberal*" is supposed to be. But I am familiar with the game "Who's Not a Liberal". If people spent as much time doing stuff as they spend decreeing who's not a liberal, they'd be dangerous.
If Mexico invaded tomorrow and took over the US, how do you think the lives of the homeless in San Francisco would change?
Well, I suppose almost everyone is "rich" in the sense that they have something to lose, if a foreign power were to come in and take it. Still seems to me to be a mighty strange argument since almost everyone would be by your standard "rich".
Begs the question is used appropriately here as the logical fallacy of that name. You can read the rather excessive discussion throughout this thread. If you still wish to collapse into a apoplectic fit, please link to the youtube video so that we can enjoy the cruel results of our collective efforts.
Very true, and at the same time, worker productivity has increased, which means they produce more wealth. At the end of the road is an oversupply crisis. This leads us back to my initial post: we will need a way to pay people for nothing.
If we looking at what actually is going on, we see 1) considerable increase in labor productivity (which is predicted by your claim), 2) a vast increase in the number of people employed (which isn't really predicted by your claim), and 3) a substantial rise in mean/median wages globally (which runs counter to your claim). Given that we aren't heading to this "end of the road", what is the point of making that claim?
Instead, I see no reason to pay people for nothing.
Because children are the school's product
No they aren't. The school doesn't make children. The school system makes educated adults. And that labor is mostly shouldered by the students of the school system.
Reagan... really seems like a fool.
Why? That's a cheap way to play crazy person. The ploy is to appear crazy and erratic so that any foe in a MAD game doesn't know how far they can push before you escalate irrationally.
That helps demonstrate how corporations are the employers here. Capital is less mobile than money (currency), but it is still MORE mobile than governments. It is much harder for Obama and his administration to "move" to China and become its government.
This is just a non sequitur, especially since employers are less mobile than their employees.
Government does have an obligation to provide services in return. H1B visas, right-to-work laws, copyright enforcement, military industrial complex to secure oil, etc.
Where is that obligation again? You haven't mentioned it. It's like claiming that a store has an obligation to sell you something. They don't. Or a driver has an obligation to read your roadside billboard. They don't. An interaction with society is not by default an obligation.
Government decrees on taxes is meaningless as corporations can just pack up and leave (or even just close down, like how Hostess recently did to their employees).
Pack up and leave at considerable cost.
So again, thanks for agreeing.
Well, if you were agreeing with me, you'd have to write something different first.
You have a bias here, you consider competition is some kind of natural law that we cannot spare.
Sure, you can spare it. You'll just reap a lot of unpleasant unintended consequences when you neglect competition.
But while People sovereignty has been neutralized, it can still be reactivated.
It hasn't been neutralized. But we need to keep in mind that the global labor force has expanded several fold in the last half century. Increase in supply of labor means a decrease in price of labor. This can be and is to a degree countered by a substantial increase in the demand for labor (via business creation and expansion), but that's an avenue where the developed world has been notably self-destructive.
Did you notice that children at school do not produce goods or service?
No, I haven't noticed this. They're producing educated, productive members of society. And if they really were producing nothing of value, then why do we have them in schools?
The founding fathers never foresaw global megacorporations with concentrations of wealth and power that exceeds that of some actual countries.
And the obvious counterexample to that claim is the East India Company, which was a global megacorporation of the 18th century. Recall that one of the defining events of the US revolution was the Boston Tea Party which was a protest against a tea tax and trade monopoly which was imposed to assist the East India Company. The tea that they happened to dump was East India tea.
And at the time, the East India Company had power far beyond any modern corporation or crime organization with a valuable opium trade with China (often illegally), a standing army in India, and considerable backing from the English government who saw them as a tool to increase English power in India and elsewhere.
So the founding fathers had a working example of such a global megacorporation in their time and had already crossed paths with it.
I don't have the impression that people can simply slack off, here in Belgium.
Last I checked, Italy wasn't in Belgium. Unless you guys have been busy, I doubt he was talking about Belgium.
The USA on the other hand has pretty much no welfare system, if you lose your job you are lucky to get a few weeks of unemployment benefits before you are tossed to the wolves.
26 weeks is more than a few weeks. And there's a temporary extension currently in place which stretched that out to about 9-14 weeks of additional payments.
This was the part I was wondering about. How long would it take to find or make a template for an object you wanted? I guess if you can search by part number, then it'll be relatively fast and accurate. But even in that case, it might be a lot of work to find those part numbers.