LumberJocks

Cost of doing business

  • Advertise with us

« back to Coffee Lounge forum

Forum topic by madts posted 321 days ago 566 views 0 times favorited 4 replies Add to Favorites Watch
View madts's profile

madts

1231 posts in 937 days


321 days ago

Topic tags/keywords: humor

Many many years ago you started a business making tables. The first table was for an Earl and it was left unfinished. A Duke saw this table and wanted one, but he wanted this thing to shine. You got to working and found this stuff that was a great finish that would reflect the sun like crazy. The Duke said go for it.

You made the table and put the finish on it. It turned out great, but you did not feel well after it was done. You would throw-up and have headaches.

Two weeks later you heard that the Dukes family was dead, after a feast. (They ate right off the table and did not use plates).

You did not think much about it until you remembered the nausea you had finishing the table. You called the local alchemist and told him what you had done. He called back the next day and told you to never to do that again. You had unbeknownst to you used arsenic in the finish. Also he sent you a bill for 7 Knuts.

After a while you decided to get together with the alchemist. It was decided to make a better finish that would not finish off the costumers. Now both of you had costumers that would not die from the products that you made. Yes it cost you some Knuts but at least you had costumers that lived and would spread the word of mouth, about your tables and the good finish on them.

So far the moral is that pollution happens, but if checked it can be a good thing. It creates innovation, it creates jobs, it keeps people alive so that you have your costumers longer. If the economy is only based on short term profits you will get burning rivers, coal mine collapses and other horrors. When things turn to a long term economy we might be able to prevent many of the disasters we see in the US., China and Bangladesh to mention a few.


You guys help me make the list of innovations: Dust masks come to mind.

My Rant for the week.

-- Thor and Odin are still the greatest of Gods.


4 replies so far

View crank49's profile

crank49

3337 posts in 1568 days


#1 posted 321 days ago

Lead free paint.

Dust collectors.

Water based and low VOC finishes.

-- Michael :-{| “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” ― A H

View mafe's profile

mafe

9435 posts in 1686 days


#2 posted 318 days ago

;-) yes start in the shop so you will live to make tables. ;-)
Dust control is for me next on the list.
Best thoughts,
Mads

-- Mad F, the fanatical rhykenologist and vintage architect. Democraticwoodworking.

View cutworm's profile

cutworm

1058 posts in 1390 days


#3 posted 318 days ago

I worked in the mines of Southern WV. Too many things to list but the one that stands out most is the EPA. Don’t know why they are so hated. But the air and water is much better because of them.

-- Steve - "Never Give Up"

View DrDirt's profile

DrDirt

2356 posts in 2339 days


#4 posted 317 days ago

Most organizations are not hated for their beginnings but for what they have evolved into for the past 20 years or so. Nothing is all good or all bad. But there are concerns because there is little recourse to fight an EPA action which is often heavy handed.

Nobody is against clean air and water.

It took a supreme court decision (unanimous in favor of the land owner) to set the record straight. (Sackett v. US)
The family bought a 2/3 acre property to build a house.
http://www.energyenvironmentallaw.com/2012/04/10/the-sackett-family-takes-on-the-environmental-protection-agency-and-wins-at-the-supreme-court/

The Sackett Family’s fight with the enforcers at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) merits consideration not because the Court clarified a complex constitutional question but because the Court unanimously reined in an overbearing federal agency in a rather mundane regulatory setting–the construction of a home near a lake.Obviously, the Supreme Court felt it was time such a message was sent to federal enforcers. The Justices chose an ordinary family’s plight in trying to build a home that may (or may not) have been subject to the restrictions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, to send the message. That law prohibits discharging any pollutant into the navigable waters of the United States without a permit. All the Sacketts wanted was their day in court to challenge the initial question of whether their property was legally subject to a civil penalty of up to $37,000 per day the EPA was demanding for failure to get a Clean Water Act permit.

For a residential building lot!! What American has those kind of resources?

-- "If we did all the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astonish ourselves." Edison

Have your say...

You must be signed in to reply.

DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

HomeRefurbers.com

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

GardenTenders.com :: gardening showcase