eddhead

ok than 2.5.. but did i really create wealth or just value??

i have both birdman's tool set, and narikaa's spring bar removers. Both are very handy.

I initially wanted the rolex GMT, but the IWC's would definetly be my second choice. They are hot watches

The bezels on the GEN intage models do not click either. I know because I have one.

dude, there has been a lot written about this in prior threads.. refer to crystalcranium's post.. 6 up. Swiss ETA's are not necessarily made in Switzerland in fact even the gens are often made in china although they are finished off in switzerland. That is seldom if ever the case with the reps which are made to the same standards, with the same parts, at the same factories but not polished off by the swiss. The term Swiss is used very generically in that regard, I really doubt that anybody meant to mis-inform you.

or a 16710 gmt mastter ii with a 2892... i'ld go for that.

well said.

i get it. in theory it makes sense, but in practice i have a problem with it... i just cannot figure out why.

I am actually one of them, but this is a pretty esoteric question. Wealth is defined by the cumlative value we assign to our things. For the most part these things do not have inherent value, but rather derived value based on a range of determinants including desireability, scarcity, useability etc.. Take a cigarette for example. The component pieces of the cigarette (Paper, cotton, tobacco, glue etc..) each have a 'value' i.e., as commodites onto themselves they are tradeable and can be exchanged for currency goods or services. The value of those commodities is defined in the open market through supply and demand dynamics. Simalarly, the finished product the cigarette also carries value. In fact the value of the cigarette exceeds the accumulated value of each of the component parts...if it did not, the cigarette manufacturer would not turn a profit. So if the value of the final product exceeds the accumulated value of the component pieces (sum is greater than the parts), and no one is getting ripped off, where did that value come from? It was CREATED during the manufacturing process. Karl Marx referred to this as the Value Added principle. So we have established that value can be created on a microeconmic basis, but does that necessarily mean that wealth can be created on a Global scale? This is as much a philosophical question as it is an economcs one. We use currency as an index to measure weath. At some point in our past, the US dollar was directly tied to the world's supply of gold, and the worlds other major currencies were assigned fixed values against the dollar. As as result, the world's supply of currency was fixed so one could argue the world's accumulated wealth was fixed. We may have had increasing choices with respect to how to spend, save, invest, etc... this wealth, but those choices were in competition with each other. But it is not so simple now. Currencies are not fixed in value, and the gold standard no longer exists. Still, I think a strict monetarist can argue that the world's weath is indeed fixed... we only have so many things we can exchange for other things, or if we add more things the value of the other things decline. ... In theory it seems to make sense, but in practice it seems kind of counter-intuitive to me. I just cannot figure out why. But I am working on it.

hmm.... very philosphical, but i am not sure I go along with it (yes i am a contrary SOB), although I will admit it is a deep and thoughtfull argument. To my mind weath, like money, is an intangible asset defined by how the articfial value we assign to assests and currency. No commodity has an intrinsic value be it a "tenner" or a watch. Rather the value place on a commodity is based on a range of intangible determinants including trust and desirability. Using your example of the crash in Germany, or the gret depression, it is true that resources before and after the crash did not change, but the way we valued those resourced did. It is the value we assess to those resources, and not the resources themselves that define wealth. For example, If you owned silver before the silver crash of the 80's you might have been a wealthy man. If you continued to own it after, you were probably not so wealthy. The amount of silver you owned did not change, but the value of the silver itself did and that change in valuation effected your wealth. This is an example of how wealth components change on a microeconomic basis as a result of changes in commodity value. On a Macroeconomic basis (and i really mean Global) I am more apt to buy into your argument. It may very well be that there is a finite amount of 'wealth' in the world, and that while the value of individual commodities may shift over time, from a global perspective accumlated wealth does not change. To be honest, I am really not sure if what I just said is inconsistent with what I said in the previous paragraph... but I can tell you that this is too deep a thought for me to have at 5:45 ET after 10 hours of work. I need a martini. Adios.

dude, that is a great looking watch. nice job.

now THAT's funny!!

well, you have created value, but not necessarily wealth. The manufactured microchip has added value vs. the raw material silicone, but it does not necessarily have added "wealth" ... The manufacturer of the chip may become wealthy as a result of selling his product, but on a macrolevel has societies' accumulated wealth really increased? Has the accumulated world GNP increased in inflation adjusted terms? Maybe but I am not convinced. What if those chips go into making computers which people purchase instead of calculators. What if sale volume and prices of calculators go down as computers permediate the market. I mean, 20 years ago a decent TI calulator went for $200.00 in 1985 dollars, what do they go for today?

"... duck season, FIRE!!!"

Great selection, I cannot wait to downlat it. u dah man!!

I guess one could argue that those inventions did not realy create wealth.. they just redistributed it. Not sure I agree with the line of thought however... need to think about it.

Of course they did not create wealth, but they justified their actions through the shareholder value mantra and the pressure it created on their operatring companies. The BOD's and the broader market came to expec nothing less than double digit growth and valued the stock with those assumptions in mind My point is that if you are not careful, the shareholder value mentality can create a climate of short term focus and/or greed at the at the expense of the best long interests of the company. It happens all the time. US companies are notorious for both thier focus on the shareholder and their lack of strategic vision. That those attributes co-exist is not a coincidence. Look at the US automakers who went big on SUV's and trucks when fuel prices were prices were relatively low, only to placed literally be on the brink of insolvency when fuel prices skyrocketed. Try convincing the BOD (or significant shareholders) of Ford Motors 5 years ago to direct some of the capital targeted toward the development of high margin SUV's, V8 muscle cars, and pick-ups to the manufacture of energy efficent or hybrid cars. Yet had they the foresight and vision to diversify their line, the company would not be in the straits it is in today. That is the difference between Toyota and GM. Want more? Given the focus on shareholder value, where is the incentive for Exxon-Mobile and BP-Amoco to invest considerable capital in building out new refinery plants? Or to REALLY look at alternative energy sources. Is that lack of foresight really in the best long-term interest of the company? Moreove, in some cases company investers are really doing nothing more than arbitraging stock waiting for the next M&A opportunity. These people use thier influence to get on the boards, encourage divesture decisons that may be strategically unsound in the long term, but maximize short term profits. Because they have no ong term interest in the company, they have no patience for strategically sound but long term initiatives. e

I realize you guys get a lot of crap from time to time, but this really is a VERY well run board. Your dedication and that of the moderators really comes through, and is highly appreciated. I normally resist making posts like this b/c if you are not carefull, it can sound like butt kissing, but i think you should know how well regarded you all (EDIT) are.

once again find myself jumping on the bandwagon. Great post.

I use superglue which adheres well, but I have not had to remove the insert. In theory, you should be able to do so by soaking cotton in nail polish remover and working it around the bezel edge, but I have not tried to to that.

that is a hot watch, but i do not think my wrist could handle a 49MM case... maybe I could wear it on my thigh!

I think the point is that while the concept of shareholder value is mission critical to a corporation, in practice, it often pressures organizations to make decisions that maximize short term gains at the expense of longer term strategic opportunities. Or in worst case examples lead to the application of unethical business practices. Look at Enron, MCI/Worldcom, Computer Associates, Global Crossing. the list goes on and on. Every one of those companies made bad decisions or engaged in unethical accounting practices, and I guarantee you, they were all done in the name of shareholder value. Ofg course, at the end of the day, the shareholder's interests were not served at all. But in many organizations, shareholder value= the attainment of qauntum leap stock price growth opportunities (EDIT) which leads to making bad long term decisions. The other thing is that if you are an employee and you hear the term "shareholder value" get ready to bend over. And I guess in a true market driven economy that is fine, darwinian even (dare i say it?) However, I cannot tell you how many times I have seen employees lose thier jobs in the name of process efficiency and shareholder value, only to be brought back at a later time as high paid consultants. All under the guise of shareholder value. So in my view, shareholder value is a worhy aim, as long as it does not become so ingrained in the corporate culture that it creates a climate that puts pressure on achieving short term gains at the expense of long term health.

great stuff.

"Willingness to change is a strength, even if it means plunging part of the company into total confusion for a while." Jack Welch Look, I get it. I realize it may appear that I advocate Change for Change's sake alone.. in fact I do not. I do however believe that what sometimes appears to be change for changes sake's alone is most often something much more than that. The preception is created by people (ion the receiving end) who are resistant to change, or by people (on the sending side) who are poor communicators. I work for a huge world class global financial institution. Within my LOB we reorg every 2-4 years even when we are in a high performance mode. Some people would perceive this as change for the sake of change alone. Others would suggest that this is the hallmark of a dynamic organization which is constantly trying to stay fresh and circulate new blood. Even with my my career, i try to change jobs within my company every 2-5 years, even if it means making a lateral move. Again, some people may perceive this as change for change's sake, I look at it as trying to stay fresh and re-invent myself. The point is that change for change's sake is seldom that at all. There is almost always a more concrete objective... it is just that not always understood.

Not to jump on the bandwagon, but those pictures are gorgeous. Good for you!!