Hey Alan, when you’re done with your present project, I found a new one for you at Sotheby‘s auction! :-)
Attachments
Images (1)
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
" There's an ass for every seat" :~)
Maybe the projected sale price shown is a typo, or misunderstood due to the heavy accent? It is Sotheby’s after all...
That would be "arse" across the pond.
Split windows are rare... 
Alan, have you started on the VW pick-up kit yet?
Not $100k-$200k for a partial body rare.
356GS posted:Alan, have you started on the VW pick-up kit yet?
The Smyth Performance kit is here as well as the 2002 donor VW Beetle I purchased. I am finishing the dune buggy built this weekend ( pics soon) next will be completing Jakes" newly painted IM speedster due here the first week in October. After I get that done I'll build the pick up some time in December. I've been keeping in touch with other pick up truck kit builders some who are already to be painted.
Lane Anderson posted:Not $100k-$200k for a partial body rare.
thus why I was hiding but now I see that's a river of tears... I thought I was hiding after making a sarcastic comment.
"...but now I see that's a river of tears..."
As would be appropriate for anyone buying that and hoping not to be underwater financially.
Jethro posted:Split windows are rare...
No windows=not rare.
I’ve decided to sell my 1955 Porsche 718 RSK Spyder. It made its debut at the 1957 24 Hours of Le Mans. Being one of only thirty-seven ever built, the 718 RSK was built to keep the original Porsche 550 model ‘alive.’ An interesting disparity between the original Porsche and the 718 is the lower front frame on the 718 that gives off the illusion of the letter ‘K,’ hence the name ‘RSK’.
The 718 was one of the third sets of RSK’s characterized by wishbone rear suspension and a simplified rear chassis to facilitate in-car gear shift changes.
Worth about $3 million, this sportscar portrays the ingenuity of a triumphant legend. The car I’m selling did not have an easy life. After being wrecked in only its third race, the team went bankrupt and didn’t have the money to complete the restoration. The car and chassis was traded to pay off debts incurred by the team. However the new owners lost interest in the car and it languished in a barn in Louisiana. Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters took its toll on the famed vehicle. I acquired it when it was bequeathed to me from an unknown relative after hearing about my love of the Porsche marquee. I too don’t have the resources needed to restore this car back to its former glory.
I offer it her first for just $200,000. There is no motor and it will need an extensive restoration. This is not for the feint of heart.
Attachments
Images (1)
Robert, I'd leave it in its current condition.
They're only original once.
Yeah, um, that'll buff out.
Survivor-class cars are worth more than most restorations anyhow. Ask anyone at Pebble Beach.
edsnova posted:Survivor-class cars are worth more than most restorations anyhow. Ask anyone at Pebble Beach.
We live in a very odd world when you stop and think about that. A car that is by any objective metric "better than new" is "overrestored". Being a "barn find" makes a car worth more than something lovingly cared for over the years.
Worst to me is that if something is modified or improved it is worth less than if it was "unmolested".
Outlaw indeed.
Stan Galat posted:edsnova posted:Survivor-class cars are worth more than most restorations anyhow. Ask anyone at Pebble Beach.
We live in a very odd world when you stop and think about that. A car that is by any objective metric "better than new" is "overrestored". Being a "barn find" makes a car worth more than something lovingly cared for over the years.
Worst to me is that if something is modified or improved it is worth less than if it was "unmolested".
Outlaw indeed.
When a car is no longer being driven for the joy of it and become an investment that's what happens I guess. I really hope our cars never become 'collectable'...
@Robert M - Boy, do I feel gullible. You had me going for awhile.
dont do it, MY 30 million is on Fedex already:}
Sending you a cashier's check for $225,000 to cover shipping and handling in addition to the price of your car. Please remit back the change.
edsnova posted:Sending you a cashier's check for $225,000 to cover shipping and handling in addition to the price of your car. Please remit back the change.
On it. Do you take Venmo, CashApp, or ApplePay?
Sorry, strictly bitcoin.
edsnova posted:Sorry, strictly bitcoin.
My wife takes a medication that costs $10/day in the US. There is a company in India making a really good generic for <$.50/day, but won't ship to the US.
There are Reddit resellers who sell for about $.75/dose, and only take Bitcoin. You know everything you need to know about the legality of an enterprise when they only take Bitcoin.
Sometimes you've gotta do what you've gotta do.
$ 10 a day that will barely cover a sandwich. Here's a real eye opened... For RA, $24,000.00 Infusions monthly or for just $12,000.00 for Enbrel 4 injections per month and the list goes on ~
Oh boy, this is gonna make me unpopular. If you think the price of any product is unfair, make it yourself, sell it for less, and you will be a billionaire. Unless of course, it is unprofitable to sell it for less. As far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, I do not have a right to anybody else's property including their medicine. I do not have a right to buy anybody's property, including their medicine. I do not have the right to force someone to sell me their property at any particular price, and if I have the government make them sell me their property, I am stealing with the threat of physical force and violence.
Good Morning everyone. 
Interesting, but here's something to consider as well. I take a daily set of pills to ward off the effects of Ulcerative Colitis. Up until last year, there was one source for it and no generic version. I have an old work friend living in Windsor, England who, unfortunately, has the same disease and takes the very same stuff from the same maker, even to the dose.
My stuff in America costs $650 per month, and my Massachusetts version of Blue Cross insurance picks up $550 of that (and thank you very much). John's monthly dosage in the UK (the "list" price is shown on his receipt from his druggist) for the same stuff from the same maker, is £128 pounds and his national insurance picks up all of it.
That's about a $500 difference in list price for the exact same drug between America and the UK.
The laissez faire attitude about capitalism and business development is only effective in an unrestrained or open market. It does apply if I don't want to pay John $2 for his widget. In that case, I can make my own widget and sell it for $1.
However, as I'm sure everyone knows, the market place for drugs involves, among other market forces, the relationship between big pharma and the FDA, and is the antithesis of an open market.
When the US has 500,000 medical bankruptcies/year, and middle class families have to choose between food and prescription drugs, something in the system is broken. It's an easy statistic to ignore until the person who needs the drug is you or someone you love. These are not trust fund kids tearing down the barricades at Cal Berkeley, these are mostly hard-working, middle class, taxpaying families who have been paying WAY more than their share of taxes for generations.
Gordon Nichols posted:Interesting, but here's something to consider as well. I take a daily set of pills to ward off the effects of Ulcerative Colitis. Up until last year, there was one source for it and no generic version. I have an old work friend living in Windsor, England who, unfortunately, has the same disease and takes the very same stuff from the same maker, even to the dose.
My stuff in America costs $650 per month, and my Massachusetts version of Blue Cross insurance picks up $550 of that (and thank you very much). John's monthly dosage in the UK (the "list" price is shown on his receipt from his druggist) for the same stuff from the same maker, is £128 pounds and his national insurance picks up all of it.
That's about a $500 difference in list price for the exact same drug between America and the UK.
Same drug costs your friend nothing in the UK. Costs you $1200 per year here. The price of a good does not determine the morality of how one obtains a product. You can steal the medication and it costs you nothing. I doubt that makes it right to steal it. Do you suppose that in the UK the government tells the drug manufacturers how much they can sell their product for? I am guessing that is the case. The liberty of the manufacturer is abrogated in order to give the product to someone else. Sounds like theft to me.
"A great burden was lifted from my shoulders the day I realized that no one owes me anything." -- Harry Browne
hypothetical: I buy my medication from the pharmacy for $100. As I am walking to my car, James Bond steals my medication. The cost to James is $0. My cost, and I have no more medication, is $100. I guess James' method to obtain medication is mine because his cost is $0. Any time a government gives to someone, it has to take from someone else.
Jim Kelly hits it right on the head. My wife suffers from Lupus and ulcerative colitis and we are slowly going under financially due to the ever increasing cost of her meds and infusions that she needs to make life barely tolerable. Her Doctor gets angry that the same Meds are a fraction of the price anyplace else in the world other than the great U.S. of A.
To compound the indignity of a medical bankruptcy, in many cases, there is no contributory negligence on the patient's part. If an alcoholic needs a liver transplant or a smoker gets lung cancer, their behavior has been, at least partly, a cause of their condition.
However, in many cases, the patient has done nothing to contribute to their illness. With our current medical knowledge, the vague diagnosis of many fatal illnesses can be attributed to ethnicity, gender, genetic predisposition, occupation, or even the general area in which the patient lives. Many of these patients have done everything right, i.e., healthy lifestyle, moderate diet, frequent exercise, no excess weight, etc., and still they draw the short straw.
Jim Kelly posted:The laissez faire attitude about capitalism and business development is only effective in an unrestrained or open market. It does apply if I don't want to pay John $2 for his widget. In that case, I can make my own widget and sell it for $1.
However, as I'm sure everyone knows, the market place for drugs involves, among other market forces, the relationship between big pharma and the FDA, and is the antithesis of an open market.
When the US has 500,000 medical bankruptcies/year, and middle class families have to choose between food and prescription drugs, something in the system is broken. It's an easy statistic to ignore until the person who needs the drug is you or someone you love. These are not trust fund kids tearing down the barricades at Cal Berkeley, these are mostly hard-working, middle class, taxpaying families who have been paying WAY more than their share of taxes for generations.
A-stinking-men. Medicine is the antithesis of a free market. Buying drugs from India IS the very definition of applying market forces to a table where the house always wins.
Todd M posted:Same drug costs your friend nothing in the UK. Costs you $1200 per year here. The price of a good does not determine the morality of how one obtains a product. You can steal the medication and it costs you nothing. I doubt that makes it right to steal it. Do you suppose that in the UK the government tells the drug manufacturers how much they can sell their product for? I am guessing that is the case. The liberty of the manufacturer is abrogated in order to give the product to someone else. Sounds like theft to me.
Todd,
Let me guess-- you're a pharmaceutical rep?
Stan Galat posted:Todd M posted:Same drug costs your friend nothing in the UK. Costs you $1200 per year here. The price of a good does not determine the morality of how one obtains a product. You can steal the medication and it costs you nothing. I doubt that makes it right to steal it. Do you suppose that in the UK the government tells the drug manufacturers how much they can sell their product for? I am guessing that is the case. The liberty of the manufacturer is abrogated in order to give the product to someone else. Sounds like theft to me.
Todd,
Let me guess-- you're a pharmaceutical rep?
Not even close. I have nothing to do with the pharma business, except that I have to pay for medications just like everyone else. My family is affected by the cost of health care just like everyone else. Every dollar of my last raise goes to an increased cost of health insurance. I seem to remember the supporters of government sponsored health insurance saying how it, Obamacare, was going to lower the prices of health care, especially pharmaceuticals. So, how is that government program working out for all of those paying for health insurance?
If anybody thinks the pharma companies are getting rich at their expense, there is a solution. Buy the stock of the pharma companies that are making too much money.
I just understand how wrong it is to take something that does not belong to me. Every emotional plea in the world does not change the fact that taking something that is not yours is stealing.
"Forcing people to be generous isn't humanitarian, effective, compassionate, or moral. Only acts that are truly voluntary for all concerned can be truly compassionate."
If a person is truly concerned with another person's plight of medical bills, then they will help pay for them. Saying the government should fix it is an attempt to feel good about oneself without actually helping.
https://www.amazon.com/Who-Rea...vatism/dp/0465008232
I have no idea why it is not clear to everyone, but it is clear to me that government involvement only raises the cost of whatever it purports to be helping, and the appeal to taxpayers is always that the cost will be borne by the rich, or somebody else will have to pay. Well, wake the ____ up.
Todd M posted:If you think the price of any product is unfair, make it yourself, sell it for less, and you will be a billionaire. Unless of course, it is unprofitable to sell it for less. As far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, I do not have a right to anybody else's property including their medicine. I do not have a right to buy anybody's property, including their medicine.
Sun Pharma (in India) is doing exactly that-- happily making a product and selling it for quite a bit less than the US drug company that makes the name brand.
They aren't selling something that belongs to someone else-- they are selling a formula not approved by the FDA that is different (by one molecule in a very complex molecular structure) than the name-brand. My wife finds the modified (generic) medication more effective than the name brand. The reason the entire thing is gray-market is because the FDA (which is firmly in the pocket of big pharma) has not approved it. This is shocking to exactly no one with even a passing understanding of how the drug business works.
The fact that a similar drug can be made and sold (everywhere but here) for 2 cents on the dollar tells me everything I need to know about the ethics of the pharma industry and what belongs to whom. The government props up the drug companies by giving them ridiculously long (and broad) patent protection, because big pharma pays the FDA's way. Each entity (the companies and the FDA) are propped up by their complementary monopolies.
It's anti-competitive in the extreme.
Stan Galat posted:Todd M posted:If you think the price of any product is unfair, make it yourself, sell it for less, and you will be a billionaire. Unless of course, it is unprofitable to sell it for less. As far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, I do not have a right to anybody else's property including their medicine. I do not have a right to buy anybody's property, including their medicine.
Sun Pharma (in India) is doing exactly that-- happily making a product and selling it for quite a bit less than the US drug company that makes the name brand.
They aren't selling something that belongs to someone else-- they are selling a formula not approved by the FDA that is different (by one molecule in a very complex molecular structure) than the name-brand. My wife finds the modified (generic) medication more effective than the name brand. The reason the entire thing is gray-market is because the FDA (which is firmly in the pocket of big pharma) has not approved it. This is shocking to exactly no one with even a passing understanding of how the drug business works.
The fact that a similar drug can be made and sold (everywhere but here) for 2 cents on the dollar tells me everything I need to know about the ethics of the pharma industry and what belongs to whom. The government props up the drug companies by giving them ridiculously long (and broad) patent protection, because big pharma pays the FDA's way. Each entity (the companies and the FDA) are propped up by their complementary monopolies.
It's anti-competitive in the extreme.
So let me see if I understand. Since you perceive the FDA to be in cahoots with the pharma companies, then it is justified that the government take my money and your money to pay for someone else's drugs? Exactly which pharma company is it that you think is in cahoots with the FDA and is making too much money as a result? Or if more than one, which pharma companies? If you think the FDA is corrupt resulting in higher drug costs, would that not be evidence to you that government involvement makes drugs cost more, not less?
I think perhaps you don't understand, since you asked. You presuppose me to be arguing for something I'm not. I'm not arguing for government intervention in fixing prices (although that is exactly what they are presently doing). I'm arguing for a free market.
You asked for an example, Here's one, although I'm sure there are many more.
Eli Lilly developed (in 1982) and markets a synthetic human insulin my daughter needs to live, which cost about $24/vial in 1997 (when she was diagnosed). It costs my (now adult) daughter over $300/ month to buy out of pocket, 20+ years later (long after the cost of development has been amortized). This begs the question-- who's interests are being served by offering Eli Lilly 35+ years of patent protection (locking every other competitor out of the market) on a drug they developed and marketed for less than 10% of the current selling price? The government is involved all right-- to the extent of protecting Eli Lilly, rather than the citizens they are tasked with protecting.
This is one example of thousands. Drug patents run into the decades. I'm a fan of intellectual property, but how many years is fair? J&J, Roche, Phizer, Baer, E. Lilly, et al are multi-billion dollar companies, precisely because they own the FDA.
When I buy drugs that aren't FDA approved, and am happy with the results, for 5% of the cost of the protected drug, who is stealing from whom?
@Stan Galat - Now I understand. And I also happen to agree with you, although I don't have as much knowledge on patent protection. Personally, I would buy the non-FDA approved drugs also.
Intellectual property, good and great ideas, have to be rewarded but for how long?
Sickness sometimes is self induced but most times it is like the lotto system of course depending if you like Levi Strauss, I mean it's in the Jeans 
Every market has a supply chain and those in it protect themselves and have a bias on their side to stay alive and hence collect from any user of their service sometimes unfair remuneration in a closed monopoly of service where competition is limited to who is best to serve but not necessarily on price.
I just ran into a veterinary issue where the need to have to go back for a visit felt more like extorsion than what was needed, so with that pressure, we informed them that their policy was excessive and we walked. It seems the regulating body supports that kind of behaviour ... go figure.
FYI, Biosimilars are meds that are close to another but not exactly the same ie: Embrel biosimilars.
Then there are those that are molecular modifications where for example Valium and Dalmane are simply one change of a Chloride to a Fluoride atom on the same structure the electronegativity causes the drug to be more fat soluble crosses the blood brain barrier and so you sleep rather than get relaxed. (at first at least)
Socialized medicine is when the government sets the price for everything and buys a vary large amount of product and services. BTW it is where the Name brand manufacturers secretly negotiate and return 50% or more of the cost to the government in secret payments back to the government for those clients they pay for. (True Facts)
If you follow the money it always gets interesting.
Soooo...are we still discussing the 1951 Porsche 356 Split-Window coupe project cited in the first entry in this thread?