Recent Topics
1 yr, 3 yr, 5yr or since inception?
by bustednutz
09/01/14 08:45 PM
2009 Mustang 4.0 Tremec fluid
by Skeet6
09/01/14 08:35 PM
where to order slip on rocker panels
by eljefino
09/01/14 07:56 PM
Accords MPG on recent trip...
by gregk24
09/01/14 07:27 PM
Built in oven-microwave combination recommendation
by Pablo
09/01/14 07:26 PM
Motorcraft FL-820S - 10,173 miles
by OVERKILL
09/01/14 07:03 PM
M1 0W20 AFE - Great Oil !
by ChrisD46
09/01/14 06:35 PM
Oil filter recommendation
by lawman1909
09/01/14 06:20 PM
Tiller identification
by cptbarkey
09/01/14 06:13 PM
Makita WT01W Cordless 3/8 Inch Impact
by Cressida
09/01/14 05:30 PM
Tire swap: Dodge GC/Chrysler T&C
by otis24
09/01/14 04:13 PM
The next gen electric car?
by Volvohead
09/01/14 03:31 PM
Newest Members
SparkSVT, grumpyoldman, jbl_91762, PapasGuy, fanie
51170 Registered Users
Who's Online
121 registered (-SyN-, 901Memphis, 29662, 01rangerxl, 123Saab, AandPDan, 11 invisible), 1855 Guests and 203 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51170 Members
64 Forums
218651 Topics
3447732 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#3284467 - 02/16/14 06:57 PM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: bigjl]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
Sure. This link suggests the US is 33% more productive than the UK.

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL

LOL did not realize the Spanish were also more productive than the UK

Top
#3284598 - 02/16/14 08:52 PM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: bigjl]
DS9 Offline


Registered: 07/10/13
Posts: 11
Loc: Belgrade, Serbia, Europe
Originally Posted By: bigjl
Oci now done. Hadn't checked the oil.on the Clio for a couple of weeks as wife doing less than 150 a week usually.

Except she forgot to tell me she has been doing extra journeys across London in rush hour traffic!

And has done nearly 800 in 2 weeks!

Less than 4 litres came out. Which could be worse as it only takes 4.5 litres

Now has a blend of just over 3 litres Castrol Magnatec 5w30 A3/B3/B4, a litre of Mobil 1 New Life 0w40 A3/B3/B4 and a drop of Mobil Super 3000 X1 FE 5w30 A5/B5.

The filter was a Mahle. One that came off was a Wix. Can't even remember when i bought that. Must have been a Sunday purchase when Euro was closed.

Engine certainly sounds better.



Nothing much unusual (blend is pretty much ok), but there will be no bigger fuel savings (only a drop of ACEA A5/B5).

However, If I mixed the oil, I'd try to do it in a transparent glass bottle. Just in order to see eventually possible precipitation from various additives (of different oils), or oil bluring. It`s safer to try this with smaller samples, and wait for a week or a month.

Anyway, next time you could try elf`s RN0720 (ACEA C4) for fuel economy, despite your clio has no FAP/DPF. Otherwise I`d stick with RN0700/0710 oils.

Btw, Mahle filters are (mainly) great.


Edited by DS9 (02/16/14 08:56 PM)

Top
#3284619 - 02/16/14 09:10 PM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: DS9]
DS9 Offline


Registered: 07/10/13
Posts: 11
Loc: Belgrade, Serbia, Europe
P.S.

Living in UK, I think I`d tried some of the BP`s Visco oils.


Edited by DS9 (02/16/14 09:11 PM)

Top
#3284821 - 02/17/14 06:39 AM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: TrevorS]
fdcg27 Offline


Registered: 09/25/09
Posts: 9195
Loc: OH
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Sure. This link suggests the US is 33% more productive than the UK.

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL

LOL did not realize the Spanish were also more productive than the UK


Did you realize that Ireland, Norway and Luxembourg were considerably more productive than the US?
These figures are not to be taken quite as literally as you might think.
Measuring labor productivity by dividing total GDP by hours worked is not in itself a good measure.
Too many other variables.
Here's an example:
Why does Norway's labor productivity appear to be so high?
If the OECD figures included the extractive economies of the Middle East, the answer would be obvious.
_________________________
12 Accord LX 22K HGMO 0W-20
09 Forester 64K PU 5W-30
02 Accord 127K G-Oil 5W-30
01 Focus ZX3 98K Synpower 10W-30
95 BMW 318iC 146K Defy 10W-40

Top
#3285254 - 02/17/14 02:18 PM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: bigjl]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
There are other statistics as well that point to the same conclusion.

The other small countries you mention have specific things going on that skews their GDP.

The major countries do not. If you understand the numbers and economies in their totality, you would not pick a few data points to cast doubt on the entire analysis. This is a classic recent technique by those who like to question science.

Do some more research yourself and you will find many studies that clearly show the UK very low on productivity vs similar countries while the US is near the top of all countries and certainly the leader amongst major economies.

Top
#3285346 - 02/17/14 03:58 PM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: TrevorS]
fdcg27 Offline


Registered: 09/25/09
Posts: 9195
Loc: OH
Not exactly.
It depends largely upon the mix of activities in any given economy.
The US has ample arable land and thus a large agricultural sector. American style farming has resulted in a minmum economic farm size of around a thousand acres, which can then be worked by a farmer and maybe his son using expensive capial equipment. No need for me to explain to you the labor productivity implications.
The US is also blessed with significant mineral wealth and these are industries that also have unusually high labor productivity.
You seem to have missed the point of my post.
Comparing apples to apples, the UK is no more and no less productive than is the US.
If the UK had the arable land and the mineral resources of the US, these economies would end up being in parity for labor productivity as measured by the OECD.
If you understand the limitations of the comparison that you brought, you'll then understand that your argument was falacious to begin with.
_________________________
12 Accord LX 22K HGMO 0W-20
09 Forester 64K PU 5W-30
02 Accord 127K G-Oil 5W-30
01 Focus ZX3 98K Synpower 10W-30
95 BMW 318iC 146K Defy 10W-40

Top
#3285499 - 02/17/14 06:29 PM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: bigjl]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
Yes its due to the mix but you do understand the concept of comparative advantage also don't you?

And you do understand that agriculture is not going to create as high a GDP per person as financial services so saying US agriculture is the reason for higher GDP is laughable!

The City of London is a huge advantage for the UK in terms of the mix required for higher GDP. It is disproportionate in mix compared to Wall St. So actually, the UK, based on industry mix alone should create more wealth and therefore GDP per person.

You can see in the link I provided that the chart was labelled Labor productivity. And that is a definition put forward by economists.

Because in the final analysis, what a country produces overall is measured in $, ie value created. So the US is generating more value per person and that is how we compare productivity in the final analysis. Why? Because the mix is always different. You can't make a productivity comparison between countries by picking micro examples. It has to be done at the macro level using $. Here is an example:

Say 2 countries were producing cars only and they had an equal working population. 1 was luxury and 1 was economy. Say it took longer to produce the luxury cars at a ratio of 8 luxury cars to 10 economy cars. Would you say the economy producing economy cars is more productive? On a per car basis yes but what if luxury cars were sold at a 50% higher price?

Using $ instead of volume cuts through having to make a determination of product and service differences. The luxury car is worth more in the market per labour hour and therefore labor has been more productive, because they have generated more added value. It is not about volume, it is about value added!

And it is not about micro analysis and picking and choosing industries to make the argument. So we use the macro measurement of $ which assigns a value to the utility that consumers get from each product and which tells you for example that even though a country produced less luxury cars than another, their productivity was higher because the market values that product higher because it had greater utility.

Top
#3285517 - 02/17/14 06:46 PM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: bigjl]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
Btw, you can google any number of studies any get the same conclusion either at the macro level taking GDP per person or even at a more scientific non macro level where economists apply some kind of methodology to the analysis.

What you can't do I'm afraid is pick and choose examples such as agriculture and land availability without a good grounding in economics that informs you how such an issue should be analyzed.

Think about it, Luxembourg has even less land than the UK!

Top
#3285535 - 02/17/14 06:53 PM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: TrevorS]
fdcg27 Offline


Registered: 09/25/09
Posts: 9195
Loc: OH
Once again, you've missed the point.
If two guys can produce corn or soybeans on 1500 acres of land, then their labor productivity is obviously very high even if the product value is pretty low per unit.
The same is true of producing gas and oil wells as well as open-cast coal and iron ore mines.
The unit values may be low, but the aggregate values are high and the labor required per unit of output is low.
Does the US enjoy higher per capita GDP than the UK?
Of course.
Is the US more producitve on an apples to apples basis?
Probably not.
You'd need to compare comparable operations to make that ascertion.
You'd also need to dig a little deeper and understand the significance of the US allowing the use of third world suppliers to a greater extent than does the EU.
Cheaply sourced components offer higher value added in first world finished goods.
And, yes, I do understand the concept of comparative advantage as well as its irrelevance in a world of far from free trade.
_________________________
12 Accord LX 22K HGMO 0W-20
09 Forester 64K PU 5W-30
02 Accord 127K G-Oil 5W-30
01 Focus ZX3 98K Synpower 10W-30
95 BMW 318iC 146K Defy 10W-40

Top
#3285549 - 02/17/14 07:10 PM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: bigjl]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
So what is the impact of third world suppliers on comparative GDP? Does it account for the 33% difference? Or is some of it agriculture?

I do take your point but the difference is way too stark and study after study shows the UK is way behind the rest of Europe in labor productivity. It is a well known fact that the Brits work longer hours than the rest of Europe and they just don't work as smart.

Multiple numbers and figures prove what I am saying.

You can't hinge your micro argument on the agriculture reason because Luxembourg has higher GDP per person than the US but less land than the UK.

You can't hinge your micro argument on low cost third world supplies because the UK is in the same tariff area as Germany and France and yet even Spain has higher productivity.

I really suggest you google for some facts, figures and studies to support your assertion that folks in the UK overall do things as productively as in the US. You should find something on the medical sector being more productive (mainly because the US is so poor (you'll also find many countries better than the UK)), and you should find something about financial services.

Top
#3286398 - 02/18/14 04:29 PM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: TrevorS]
fdcg27 Offline


Registered: 09/25/09
Posts: 9195
Loc: OH
Okay, let me make this as simple as I can.
Take an average UK factory and compare it to an average US factory.
Do you really think that there are significant differences in output per worker?
To the extent that there are, how much of that is attributable to "working smarter", to use your phrase, and how much is attributable to the American worker having more capital to work with?
To the extent that American manufaturing is more efficient than manufacturing in the UK, assuming that it is, this is probably entirely attributable to the substituion of capital for labor.
Not a bad thing in itself, but a certain way of drying up decently paid employment opportunities for the low skilled.
The American economic model has created great wealth for most of us with the unfortunate side effect of tossing the lower skilled into poorly paid service sector jobs.
Incidentally, financial services are all about wealth management, not wealth creation. They are a zero sum game.
_________________________
12 Accord LX 22K HGMO 0W-20
09 Forester 64K PU 5W-30
02 Accord 127K G-Oil 5W-30
01 Focus ZX3 98K Synpower 10W-30
95 BMW 318iC 146K Defy 10W-40

Top
#3287263 - 02/19/14 01:30 PM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: fdcg27]
bar1 Offline


Registered: 07/01/05
Posts: 866
Loc: Norway
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
...
Here's an example:
Why does Norway's labor productivity appear to be so high?
If the OECD figures included the extractive economies of the Middle East, the answer would be obvious.


Yep. Norwegian tax income on oil from the north sea was USD 65 833 333 333 (USD 1 - 6 NOK, NOK 395 000 000 000) in 2012. Around 1 500 000 oil barrels a day.


Edited by bar1 (02/19/14 01:30 PM)

Top
#3289757 - 02/21/14 04:29 PM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: fdcg27]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Okay, let me make this as simple as I can.
Take an average UK factory and compare it to an average US factory.
Do you really think that there are significant differences in output per worker?
To the extent that there are, how much of that is attributable to "working smarter", to use your phrase, and how much is attributable to the American worker having more capital to work with?
To the extent that American manufaturing is more efficient than manufacturing in the UK, assuming that it is, this is probably entirely attributable to the substituion of capital for labor.
Not a bad thing in itself, but a certain way of drying up decently paid employment opportunities for the low skilled.
The American economic model has created great wealth for most of us with the unfortunate side effect of tossing the lower skilled into poorly paid service sector jobs.
Incidentally, financial services are all about wealth management, not wealth creation. They are a zero sum game.


There was no argument about the inherent skill of the worker and if their productivity is higher because they or their employer uses more capital. There was just the statement about productivity being higher. UK manufacturers are free to use as much capital as they want, they are free to employ specialists who look at how to improve productivity. The end result, for whatever reason, is the UK workers are less productive. Some of the cause lies with management, some with workers. But in general, I put it down to a lack of willingness to educate and to seek better ways of doing things by the country as a whole.

Secondly, financial services do create wealth. They allocate capital to profitable endeavors. Insurance is a service that gives people peace of mind which means they go about their business with more confidence. Sure, its hard to understand how derivatives create wealth but not many other things in financial services. Even the concept of options is used by businesses and individuals to reduce uncertainty. I've used options a few times myself to lock in a position that I could not realize when it became profitable.

Top
#3289812 - 02/21/14 05:27 PM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: TrevorS]
fdcg27 Offline


Registered: 09/25/09
Posts: 9195
Loc: OH
Think carefully through the flow of funds through any financial services transaction.
There is never any creation of wealth, merely a reallocation of funds from one party to another.
Insurance represents merely a pooling of risk and options of all kinds, particularly futures contracts, are properly used as a form of insurance.
It's also rather silly to actually write that the UK is somehow backward in education as a whole.
Some would say the same of our country relative to many others, but the promise of wealth for talent here seems to suck in many of the best and the brightest from those countries with lower per capita GDPs than ours.
Very low marginal tax rates in the US don't hurt either in attracting talent.
A lot more involved than you seem to think.
The figures don't lie, but you have to have the knowledge to put them into context.
_________________________
12 Accord LX 22K HGMO 0W-20
09 Forester 64K PU 5W-30
02 Accord 127K G-Oil 5W-30
01 Focus ZX3 98K Synpower 10W-30
95 BMW 318iC 146K Defy 10W-40

Top
#3289885 - 02/21/14 06:39 PM Re: What i just put in the Clio [Re: bigjl]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
You need to think carefully about how wealth is created. Your simplistic view is that financial services doesn't create wealth because it is shifting money.

But I gave you several examples which you are ignoring. One is the efficient allocation of capital. There are limited funds for investing and investing them well generates more economic growth than investing them badly. So a financial service such as accounting and auditing generates trust in financial reports. Financial analysis and activities such as investment banking look for how best to invest and things like corporate development and m&a look at how to develop markets. These activities must generate wealth otherwise they would not exist.

Its funny that you presume I am not putting information into context. You doubted that labor productivity is higher in the US than the UK and were shown numbers that you could have easy found yourself. Indeed you should have known about these numbers if you have anything above a laymans interpretation of economics.

The idea that financial services does not create wealth is laughable. I'm sorry but that is what it is. And if you state otherwise you are clearly a layman. Please find one economist who agrees with you on this point otherwise this discussion has run its course and I'm done.

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >