P
pdp11
It's a relative measurement. From where I sit, 34 is still pretty wet
behind the ears. (I've been driving my car since nearly before you
were born!)
Because not everyone agrees on what is "better for everyone," for
starters.
In 1967 (I was there), a gallon of regular gasoline typically cost
about 30 cents. A candy bar, as one example, cost a nickel. Today a
gallon of gasoline costs about $3.00 and a candy bar costs at least 50
cents if not more. The inflation rate for various items is different,
of course, but most commodity/staple items have experienced about a
tenfold increase.
A vary large component of high European fuel prices is taxation.
You are looking at it as a "loophole." I am looking at it saying that
the federal government should not have the authority to set these
standards in the first place. The U.S. is supposed to have a limited
central government with specific, enumerated powers. The "interstate
commerce" clause of the Constitution was intended to prevent the trade
wars and tariffs between the States that were such a problem under the
Articles of Confederation, not to give the federal government carte
blanch to micro-manage products and services. (Though of course
additional authority may be granted via the amendment process.)
A government powerful enough to dictate how much fuel your vehicle can
use, how much water your toilet can use, etc., is not one that is
conducive to personal liberty. Fuel economy should be dictated by the
market. (As fuel prices rise, people will naturally purchase smaller
vehicles.)
No, I am not. In general you seem to want to correct the "problems"
that you see via government intervention. By definition, every
government action is an action of force and coercion.
I don't listen to NPR.
What I care about is the continual growth of government power at the
expense of individual liberty that we have experienced under both
major political parties for decades.
There are plenty of oil resources in and around North America. The tar
sands of Alberta alone would be enough to fuel the entire world for
the next century. There is no need to sell North American oil to China
or India.
As I said, I've been hearing that we'll run out of oil in 20-30 years
for about 50 years now.
Now it is you who are twisting my words. I said no such thing. I
simply disagree with you on what problems we may be facing and how to
go about addressing them.
You still have not made a case for why the year is of any relevance.
Car makers produce the cars they believe the public will purchase. If
they do not do so they go out of business. This is the case regardless
of what the year is.
Once again, you are twisting my words and making assumptions. I
question the effectivness of these gadgets, as well as possible
undesirable side effects. Air bags in particular are not necessary for
people wearing seat belts, they are supplemental systems that were
developed in the first place because a lot of idiots would not wear
their belts. (Every policeman that I have talked to has a saying, that
they have "never unbelted a corpse.")
For examples of cars that are extremely safe and protect their
occupants in horrific accidents sans airbags, check out pre-airbag
Saabs and Volvos.
It is ridiculous to think they are necessary. As far as statistics, as
the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. (The
stats for air bags are cooked, as it is assumed that every time an air
bag goes off that someone's life is saved. On the other hand, I
personally know someone who was blinded by an airbag that went off in
a low-speed parking lot fender-bender.)
Neither anti-lock brakes nor stability control are needed by a driver
who actually knows how to handle their vehicle. (Having spent many
years in software development, including embedded microprocessor
systems, the idea of a computer taking over from and making judgements
for the driver is not something I believe is a particularly good
thing.)
There are "dummy" inserts available to replace steering-wheel airbags
for people who either don't want to replace them after they have gone
off, or want to remove them. So there is at least some market for
disabling them.
True, they were not developed until the 1970s.
Well, you're still a relative beginner, give it time.
You call for the expansion of government-mandated fuel economy
standards, for one.
You forget, in my own case I have never left the carburetor days.
Nowhere did I state that you or anyone else should do the same.
I have seen few "facts" from you, just opinons. (An opinion is not a
"fact" just because it's stated by someone else on a web page.)
Once again, you are putting yourself in the position of dictating what
is and is not waste. Some might say that Al Gore and John Kerry are
wasting huge amounts of energy in living their fabulously wealthy
lifestyles. (I, on the other hand, have no problem with them or anyone
else enjoying their wealth.)
As I have said, why don't you calculate the amount of energy used and
waste produced in the manufacture of a new car. (Be sure to include
the mining and refining of the raw materials.) After looking this up,
come back and tell me again how much I'm "wasting" by driving the same
"inefficient" car for 30 years or more versus the more conventional
approach of purchasing or leasing a new vehicle every few years.
Electric cars to my knowledge never had to be cranked. Early gasoline
cars had to be cranked, prior to the invention of the Kettering
electric starter. The early electrics suffered from limited range and
battery life.
Not at all. You are comparing the proverbial apples and oranges.
Don't forget that part of Detroit's problems stem from legacy expenses
engendered by their union contracts.
There have been periods of time when the domestic auto industry tried
at least in part to push safety and economy. Since you are not wet
behind the ears or anything, I'm sure you remember when Ford made a
big safety push for the 1956 model year and saw their sales plummet.
Likewise I'm sure you must remember when under George Romney, Nash/AMC
(which specialized in small cars) waged a very public media war
against "gas guzzling dinosaurs" and "trundling tanks." Also, caught
between domestic compacts and rising import sales, as I am certain you
will remember, there was a flurry of compact car development in the
1959-1960 timeframe by the Big 3. (That's without even getting into
the real small fry like Crosley and King Midget, which I am certain
you must recall as well.) Public response was enough to keep
relatively small companies going for a while, but consumers for the
most part preferred larger vehicles, and were not concerned with
safety. The Big 3 compacts within a few years became "longer, lower, &
wider."
The long Hyundai warranty is nice, but the real reason for it is that
the companyi had a reputation for poor-quality products and needed a
way to instill consumer confidence. (Even today despite all the
improvements there are many people who still equate Hyundai with junk.
It takes a long time to outgrow that kind of reputation.) However,
Hyundai is fairly infamous for looking for excuses to disallow
coverage on the 100,000 mile warranty, and the items covered are
fairly limited. They are not really a consumer-oriented company, but
then again none of the auto companies are. (As you may recall, once
again not being wet behind the ears or anything, one of the few
attempts at an auto company being truly consumer-oriented was when AMC
introduced their "Buyer Protection Plan" in the early 1970s. It was
considered revolutionary at the time.)
The U.S. is not a "Democracy," it is a Constitutional Republic. A
Democracy is little more than mob rule, essentially two wolves and a
sheep voting on what to have for lunch. In a Constitutional Republic
the government is supposed to be limited to specific enumerated powers
no matter what the voters decide. (It imposes limits on the "will of
the people," or at least is supposed to. The U.S. government has
largely escaped these limitations due to a variety of factors.)
And with government, the people get hosed and the politicians make out
like bandits. While the Enron execs were corrupt, they learned from
the best. (Government thugs, with a monopoly on the legitimized usage
of force on their side, have the potential to do much more harm than
any private-sector thugs.)
If the Constitution does not authorize it, yes, I would be opposed to
it. (Prosecuting fraud is generally a state matter.) I do not buy the
"ends justify the means" argument. That is a very slippery slope and
the battle cry of every tyrant to come down the pike. If a specific
new federal power is truly needed, that is what the amendment process
is for.
If people want the federal government to take on authority outside
those powers explicitly authorized by the Constitution, they are
obligated to to make a case for an amendment rather than looking for
ways to do an end run around the restrictions. (Note that this has
been done in the past for things as stupid as alcohol prohibition. But
at least people at that time still realized an amendment to the
Constitution was needed to give the federal government that kind of
authority. Contrast that to today's drug prohibition laws.)
Old news. This has been the case with pretty much every president, and
every politician. Follow the money trail.