Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Big Orange
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7108
Joined: 2006-04-22 05:15pm
Location: Britain

Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Big Orange »

Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions controls
US president Barack Obama signed a pair of executive orders, signalling America's leadership role on climate change

Barack Obama made his opening move in the greening of America's economy today, using his presidential authority to press for tougher emissions controls on half of the country's cars.

Obama, in signing a pair of executive orders, delivered his strongest repudiation to date of the policies of George Bush, inviting environmentalists to the White House to announce that America would now play a global leadership role on climate change.

In a further sign of Obama's commitment to a green agenda, the state department today named Todd Stern, a former Clinton administration official who played a key role in the Kyoto negotiations, as its envoy on climate change today.

As a first step, Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its refusal to allow California and more than a dozen other states to impose stricter controls on auto emissions from new cars and trucks.

He followed up by raising fuel efficiency standards on all cars and light trucks rolling off the assembly line from 2011 onwards.

"Instead of serving as a partner, Washington stood in the way," Obama said in a pointed rebuke of the Bush policies. "The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny the facts. It will be guided by them."

Private cars are thought to account for about a quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions in America.

Democratic leaders in Congress and greens saw today's measures as a first step by Obama in redeeming his campaign promises on the environment, despite the economic recession.

"Amidst the array of challenges facing his administration, President Obama's actions today send a clear signal to America and the world that his administration will play a leadership role on energy and global warming," said Phyllis Cuttino, the director of the Pew Environment Group's global warming campaign.

California and 13 other states are looking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and light trucks by 30% by 2016. Four other states are ready to follow suit.

To reach that target, new cars would have to reach a standard of 36.8 miles per gallon.

The impact on the environment and the auto industry would be sizeable. Together, California and the like-minded states account for nearly half the cars on America's roads.

The presidential order stops short of demanding the EPA immediately reverse its policy. That would have put enormous pressure on America's car companies, only weeks after GM and Chrysler were reduced to seeking a bail-out from Congress, to immediately ramp up production of the cleaner vehicles.

Obama said he was aware of the pressures on America's struggling carmakers. "Our goal is not to further burden the struggling American auto industry," he said.

Instead, Obama asked the agency to review its refusal to grant California a waiver to regulate auto emissions related to global warming. That should buy the auto industry a few months time.

Environmentalists said they hoped the EPA would have tough new emissions controls in place by the summer, following the review process.

Obama also ordered the transportation department to compel the auto industry to make more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. The order would require all new vehicles rolling off the assembly line in 2011 to get at least 35 mpg.

The measures amount to a rolling back of the most controversial Bush policies on the environment. In 2007, Bush officials at the EPA blocked efforts by California to set higher emissions standards. The Bush administration also dragged its heels on meeting a deadline for raising fuel efficiency standards.

Both moves by Obama today had been widely anticipated - by reluctant automakers as well as environmentalists.

However, environmentalists said they were cheered at the speed with which Obama moved to get rid of the obstacles in California's way.

They also noted the political importance of an apparent partnership on the environment between Obama and the Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger wrote to Obama last Wednesday, his first full day in the White House, asking him to re-open the Bush administration's refusal to allow California and other states set their own emissions standards.

As with many of Obama's pronouncements in his first days in the White House, environmentalists also paid careful attention to his tone. The president once again put emphasis on the environmental aspects of the economic stimulus plan now before Congress.

"By making this decision today the president has sent an unmistakable signal that this is one of America's highest priorities," said Vickie Patton of the Environmental Defence Fund. "It provides a first step towards a comprehensive cap on global warming pollution in America."
Link

One: We do not encourage posting without comment. If you intend to post something, try to contribute a thought of your own. Two: Thread titles are to clearly indicate the content of the thread. - Lagmonster
Last edited by Lagmonster on 2009-01-27 07:31am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Edited thread title for clarity.
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...' - Dr. Evil

'Secondly, I don't see why "income inequality" is a bad thing. Poverty is not an injustice. There is no such thing as causes for poverty, only causes for wealth. Poverty is not a wrong, but taking money from those who have it to equalize incomes is basically theft, which is wrong.' - Typical Randroid

'I think it's gone a little bit wrong.' - The Doctor
User avatar
TithonusSyndrome
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2569
Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Location: The Money Store

Re: Obama Sweeps up More of Bush's Shit...

Post by TithonusSyndrome »

Well, nobody likes a cynic, but let's face it - making private vehicles more fuel-efficient implies that universal car ownership is not coming off the table in the near future, and we all know what kind of shelf life THAT has. I'll hold my breath for more long-term stimulus projects like rail and nuclear power.

Even so, statements like these are reasonably heartening:
"The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny the facts. It will be guided by them."
:D
Image
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Obama Sweeps up More of Bush's Shit...

Post by Broomstick »

TithonusSyndrome wrote:Well, nobody likes a cynic, but let's face it - making private vehicles more fuel-efficient implies that universal car ownership is not coming off the table in the near future, and we all know what kind of shelf life THAT has.
No, it's not. Sorry to crush everyone's fantasies of everyone using mass transit, but until we spend a generation re-engineering the infrastructure it ain't gonna happen, and even if it did, individual vehicles are so damn useful they won't disappear entirely.

That said - it should be doable. I have a car built in 2002 that reliably gets 40+ mpg. In other words, 7 years ago it already exceeded these proposed future standards. If you double the mileage for a given vehicle/use configuration then you halve the demand and use. That is a significant change and one I'm all in favor of. Don't discard the good just because it's not perfect.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Ma Deuce
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4359
Joined: 2004-02-02 03:22pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Obama Sweeps up More of Bush's Shit...

Post by Ma Deuce »

That said - it should be doable. I have a car built in 2002 that reliably gets 40+ mpg.
No, it isn't doable by 2011, and you don't have a clue about the lead times involved in the auto industry if you believe otherwise (and apparently, neither does Obama), so I'll clue you in: automakers usually have to begin designing their next generation of models less than a year or two after the current ones first hit the showroom floors. That's 3-4 years on average, add to the fact that R&D for future trends needs to be assigned well in advance of that, add the time to completely retool plants for models that can no longer be made and you start to get the picture. 2017 was doable; 2011 is not, and Obama is gravely endangering the US auto industry more than it already is by throwing them a curveball like that.

It also doesn't matter a damn if you're somehow getting 40+ mpg out of an Echo, the fact is the EPA rates it for 30-32 mpg, and that's the kind of number that'll be used to determine the fuel economy rating for each automaker (hint: even Toyota's current fleet average in the US is only about 27, so I doubt even they will be able to make the changeover by 2011; in fact they initially resisted even the original 2017 deadline)
Image
The M2HB: The Greatest Machinegun Ever Made.
HAB: Crew-Served Weapons Specialist


"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." --P.J. O'Rourke

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --J.S. Mill
Junghalli
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5001
Joined: 2004-12-21 10:06pm
Location: Berkeley, California (USA)

Re: Obama Sweeps up More of Bush's Shit...

Post by Junghalli »

TithonusSyndrome wrote:Well, nobody likes a cynic, but let's face it - making private vehicles more fuel-efficient implies that universal car ownership is not coming off the table in the near future
Can't say I'm displeased. I happen to like the freedom to drive; I'd support the end of popular car ownership only if it proved truly, absolutely necessary in the face of Peak Oil and Global Warming. I see an eventual switch-over to electric cars as the best case scenario myself.
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: Obama Sweeps up More of Bush's Shit...

Post by Alyeska »

Seeing as a very large part of the population of this country doesn't live in self contained cities, there is no practical means to take away car ownership.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Obama Sweeps up More of Bush's Shit...

Post by Broomstick »

Ma Deuce wrote:
That said - it should be doable. I have a car built in 2002 that reliably gets 40+ mpg.
No, it isn't doable by 2011, and you don't have a clue about the lead times involved in the auto industry if you believe otherwise (and apparently, neither does Obama), so I'll clue you in: automakers usually have to begin designing their next generation of models less than a year or two after the current ones first hit the showroom floors. That's 3-4 years on average, add to the fact that R&D for future trends needs to be assigned well in advance of that, add the time to completely retool plants for models that can no longer be made and you start to get the picture. 2017 was doable; 2011 is not, and Obama is gravely endangering the US auto industry more than it already is by throwing them a curveball like that.
First point: we already have vehicles that meet the standard So don't fucking say "impossible" when we've already done it in a few instances. The sad thing is that it's not the American companies that have done it. We won't get regular SUV's to meet that standard - boo-fucking-hoo. Maybe the hybrid SUV's can pull it off, I haven't looked into that.

"Gravely endangering US auto industry"? Oh, please - they're already fucked. And you know what? It's their own damn fault. The can't go back to business as usual, not ever, not anymore. They at least need to make the attempt (extensions are possible). Their current shit isn't selling, so they might as well re-tool anyhow because if they don't produce something sellable they're toast.

On top of that - NOBODY but the auto industry is surprised at this call for stricter standards. WTF is their problem? Asian car companies are putting out cars in the US that meets these standards right now (granted, not a lot of them, but they do exit). SOMEBODY saw this coming, why not Detroit? It's because they're a pack of arrogant morons.

Keep in mind, too, that not all of the requirements are coming from Obama now that he's letting states set standards as well. So don't dump entirely on him. He's the PotUS, not an all-powerful dictator.
It also doesn't matter a damn if you're somehow getting 40+ mpg out of an Echo, the fact is the EPA rates it for 30-32 mpg, and that's the kind of number that'll be used to determine the fuel economy rating for each automaker
First of all, the 2002 Echo "unadjusted" rating is 35 mpg and 47 mpg highway. The sticker values were... well, I remember the highway one was 38, which, as I pointed out, we have consistently bettered (the Echo I have was sold during the old methods of calculation). If you don't drive like the average moron it is possible to get pretty close to that. Obviously, I don't drive like a moron. I won't claim 47 mpg highway but I usually get 40-42. Maybe we need to teach people how to fucking drive, too. Maybe we need to find a middle ground between the old and new mpg calculations because the new ones are coming out too low compared to actual driver results, which isn't fair to the car markers trying to meet standards. Even under the new method of calculating the mpg the 2002 Echo comes in at 34 highway, which is what most of my driving is, and in any case I'm reliably exceeding it. So do a fuckton of other Echo owners, which is why we like the car so damn much and I've received offers to buy my used car for more than what I originally paid for it. I'm sorry if it chaps your ass I'm a competent driver and the car actually performs better than advertised. That doesn't change the reality that I have a car built in 2002 that already meets the 2011 standard. If there's some "official rating" that says otherwise that rating is fucked because I'm not performing magic here. I know they reworked the MPG ratings to make them more accurate but from the first day there were complaints the new calculations were seriously undershooting reality.

We have at least one other Echo driver on SD.net, I'd be interested in knowing what THEIR results are.
(hint: even Toyota's current fleet average in the US is only about 27, so I doubt even they will be able to make the changeover by 2011; in fact they initially resisted even the original 2017 deadline)
I'm not talking about the "fleet average". The "fleet average" includes some fucking big trucks which will skew the results downward significantly. I'm talking about Toyota's most fuel efficient cars as currently produced.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Big Orange
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7108
Joined: 2006-04-22 05:15pm
Location: Britain

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Big Orange »

I'm just glad that not even a month has gone by and Obama is already putting through several helpful policies making up for the last squandered seven or so years under the GOP. Would it be a good idea to have a pair of high-speed railway links for the West and East coast cities? That seems like common sense to me, while also beefing up the freight rail links inbetween.
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...' - Dr. Evil

'Secondly, I don't see why "income inequality" is a bad thing. Poverty is not an injustice. There is no such thing as causes for poverty, only causes for wealth. Poverty is not a wrong, but taking money from those who have it to equalize incomes is basically theft, which is wrong.' - Typical Randroid

'I think it's gone a little bit wrong.' - The Doctor
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by SirNitram »

Big Orange wrote:I'm just glad that not even a month has gone by and Obama is already putting through several helpful policies making up for the last squandered seven or so years under the GOP. Would it be a good idea to have a pair of high-speed railway links for the West and East coast cities? That seems like common sense to me, while also beefing up the freight rail links inbetween.
High speed rail between major population centres would be an excellent idea. Unfortunately, there's no constituency for rail in the Congress, save for Sen. Byrd(Biden was, but he's no longer a senator).
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Crayz9000
Sith Apprentice
Posts: 7329
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:39pm
Location: Improbably superpositioned
Contact:

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Crayz9000 »

The one comment I will make is that allowing California's CARB to lead the emissions circus can be a very bad idea. CARB is, after all, the board that came up with an "emissions-free" jerrycan mandate that basically requires the use of a spring-loaded spout that jams during regular use, slips due to the amount of force required to depress the spring, and in the long run actually makes you spill more gasoline than you pour into the tank.

All this because they didn't want vapor to leak out during pouring.

We need AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS coming up with workable emissions standards, not Sacramento or Washington politicians.
A Tribute to Stupidity: The Robert Scott Anderson Archive (currently offline)
John Hansen - Slightly Insane Bounty Hunter - ASVS Vets' Assoc. Class of 2000
HAB Cryptanalyst | WG - Intergalactic Alliance and Spoof Author | BotM | Cybertron | SCEF
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Darth Wong »

Crayz9000 wrote:The one comment I will make is that allowing California's CARB to lead the emissions circus can be a very bad idea. CARB is, after all, the board that came up with an "emissions-free" jerrycan mandate that basically requires the use of a spring-loaded spout that jams during regular use, slips due to the amount of force required to depress the spring, and in the long run actually makes you spill more gasoline than you pour into the tank.

All this because they didn't want vapor to leak out during pouring.

We need AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS coming up with workable emissions standards, not Sacramento or Washington politicians.
Automotive engineers are trained to design things to meet specs, and to tell you how feasible and/or expensive that will be. Setting specs is a different job, particularly when you have to balance economic concerns against environmental ones. Automotive engineers should absolutely be included in the process because they are needed in order to establish feasibility and estimate cost, but they can't be put in charge of setting the standards because they represent only one part of the system.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Ma Deuce
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4359
Joined: 2004-02-02 03:22pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Ma Deuce »

Broomstick wrote:First point: we already have vehicles that meet the standard So don't fucking say "impossible" when we've already done it in a few instances.
Not a single model that is sold in the US market that fits the criteria, excepting hybrids and the smart fortwo. And since you clearly did not read my post carefully enough, I'll spell it out with bold letters: I never said it was impossible to build cars that fuel efficient, only that it was not possible to make the changeover in a mere two years, even though they have the technology now. Clear?
We won't get regular SUV's to meet that standard - boo-fucking-hoo. Maybe the hybrid SUV's can pull it off, I haven't looked into that.
No, not even the hybrids can which means they'll have to cease production immediately and the plants completley retooled to make something smaller, and completely alter their supplier contracts and logistics chains for that plant. Do you know how long that takes?
The sad thing is that it's not the American companies that have done it. We won't get regular SUV's to meet that standard - boo-fucking-hoo.
No, the sad thing is that Americans have become such vapid, self centered consumerist sponges they can't even rally behind their own industries and fellow workers in their time of need anymore: Whatever happened to "ask not what your country can do for you?". Obama ran on a campaign of "change", but frankly the only change that will actually save America is radical social re-engineering from the top down that will drive a stake through the heart of consumerism and Reaganomics once and for all, but nobody Americans will actually elect will be willing to make those changes. Maybe Marina was right; Maybe a dictatorship is the only way.
"Gravely endangering US auto industry"? Oh, please - they're already fucked.


Then change it to "Gravely endangering the entire economy". If the auto industry is fucked, then so is your entire fucking country, and mine as well: around 1-in-10 North American jobs depend on the auto industry, and it's collapse would instantly transform this recession into a full-on depression, the whole rust belt will become as a third-world country, and Obama's "stimulus" will go right down the toilet, because nothing will be able to recover our economy from that kind of body blow. NOTHING. Allowing it to fail is absolutely, positively unacceptable under any circumstances. If Obama wants to force this deadline on the industry, maybe he should just nationalize them and try doing it himself.

Ironically, that kind of collapse would almost certainly take down Toyota in their current state, as they now only have an estimated $18.5 billion in the bank (for reference, that's roughly what Ford has now, and what GM did less that 2 months before the bailout), combined with a negative cashflow, and short-term liabilities that now exceed their total assets, something that has never before happened to them.
And you know what? It's their own damn fault. The can't go back to business as usual, not ever, not anymore. They at least need to make the attempt (extensions are possible).
No, it's the American consumer's fault. They bought those SUVs in the first place, and they elected the politicians who made the trend possible by not nipping it in the bud, and they refuse to support their own industry and workers when they need it the most. Much like with outsourcing, no individual company had much of a choice except to compete or die, which is why even the Asians began building oversized SUVs.

The automakers may have been slow to recognize the end of the trend (but virtually no automaker wasn't guilty of this), but they arenot going back to business as usual. Back during the gas spike I recall GM's product chief stating that gas prices falling back to $1.50/gallon was about the worse thing that could happen to their future product plans (guess what's already happened). During the same time GM indefinitely suspended development on all V8 engines and large trucks, and as far as I know they have not reversed that decision or any other product plans made during that time or since the 2017 deadline was originally imposed. So don't fucking pretend they're not trying.
Their current shit isn't selling, so they might as well re-tool anyhow because if they don't produce something sellable they're toast.
Nobody's cars OF ANY KIND are selling very well anymore, but in case you didn't notice GM is still the biggest player in the US market so obviously someone is buying their shit. Have you seen the industry-wide sales figures over the last few months? the Imports have been down as much as the domestics. The auto industry's problems no longer have anything to with gas prices and everything to do with the credit crunch, which I think is still going to get far worse before it gets better, regardless of what anyone does. How else do you explain Toyota's rapid reversal of fortunes?
On top of that - NOBODY but the auto industry is surprised at this call for stricter standards.
The auto industry isn't surprised at all, they've long gotten used to nobody even listening to their concerns and being the whipping boy for all America's problems, that should rightfully be lain at the feet of the common American consumer. That joke of a senate hearing in December was proof of that: There should have been no drama whatsoever surrounding that bailout, it should have been simply open and shut. Just shows how far your country has fallen when your own government can't decide if it wants to support one of your country's vital strategic industries when the alternative would be economic armageddon.

They and anyone else who has a clue about the industry simply knows it can't be done in two years. In any case, they did know stricter standards were coming, you know the 35 MPG by 2017 that congress passed over a year ago? Why did Obama have to change that 2011 instead of leaving well enough alone?
WTF is their problem?
Their problem is that they understand how industrial production works and the politicians who create this deadline and the public at large do not. The original 2017 deadline passed by congress was possible, as I stated before and you clearly did not read, the new 2011 deadline is not. Did you also not remember that Toyota themselves initially resisted even the 2017 deadline along with Detroit, but they all eventually fell in line when they realized it was a lost cause? Again, why was the 2017 deadline not good enough?
Asian car companies are putting out cars in the US that meets these standards right now (granted, not a lot of them, but they do exit). SOMEBODY saw this coming, why not Detroit? It's because they're a pack of arrogant morons.
Again, except for hybrids, no they are not. GM and Ford are also selling cars in other markets right now that easily meet the standard, but bringing them over here in a two year time frame and selling them in sufficient numbers, is simply not doable since again you'd have to retool to produce them locally to sell them in any significant numbers here, write up new supplier contracts to start getting the parts made locally etc, since those overseas plants were made to serve their market and would not have the capacity to serve North America as well. the cars would also have to be tested and approved by a host of federal agencies (and often modified, as cars sold in other countries are not necessarily street-legal here).

God, I am so fuck sick and tired of constantly responding to the same generic anti-Detroit bullshit.
Keep in mind, too, that not all of the requirements are coming from Obama now that he's letting states set standards as well. So don't dump entirely on him. He's the PotUS, not an all-powerful dictator
He's the one that's proposing the 2011 deadline; the States' own deadline won't kick in till 2016, making it almost the same as Congress' original 2017 deadline: That's not what I'm complaining about. However, if those new state emissions standards include tighter restrictions on particulates and NOx, they will actually make harder to raise fuel economy, because it will become nigh impossible to sell diesel cars here, and that's something we need more of.
First of all, the 2002 Echo "unadjusted" rating is 35 mpg and 47 mpg highway. The sticker values were... well, I remember the highway one was 38, which, as I pointed out, we have consistently bettered (the Echo I have was sold during the old methods of calculation). If you don't drive like the average moron it is possible to get pretty close to that. Obviously, I don't drive like a moron. I won't claim 47 mpg highway but I usually get 40-42. Maybe we need to teach people how to fucking drive, too. Maybe we need to find a middle ground between the old and new mpg calculations because the new ones are coming out too low compared to actual driver results, which isn't fair to the car markers trying to meet standards. Even under the new method of calculating the mpg the 2002 Echo comes in at 34 highway, which is what most of my driving is, and in any case I'm reliably exceeding it. So do a fuckton of other Echo owners, which is why we like the car so damn much and I've received offers to buy my used car for more than what I originally paid for it. I'm sorry if it chaps your ass I'm a competent driver and the car actually performs better than advertised. That doesn't change the reality that I have a car built in 2002 that already meets the 2011 standard. If there's some "official rating" that says otherwise that rating is fucked because I'm not performing magic here. I know they reworked the MPG ratings to make them more accurate but from the first day there were complaints the new calculations were seriously undershooting reality.
Well, bully good for you, I don't give a flying fuck one way or another how much mileage you get out of your treasonmobile, except that it's totally irrelevant. Even if the new EPA average is undershooting reality, that's what's going to be used to determine each automaker's compliance to the new standards.. This "average" rating also assumes a 55/45% split between city and highway driving, yet you say your driving is mostly highway. If you were averaging 40+ MPG in a 45/55 cycle, then this new 35 MPG standard would in reality be a 48-50 MPG standard.
I'm not talking about the "fleet average". The "fleet average" includes some fucking big trucks which will skew the results downward significantly. I'm talking about Toyota's most fuel efficient cars as currently produced.
Excuse me, the fleet average is at the heart of the matter, because that's the exact indicator of each automaker's compliance. It matters not that Toyota may sell some models which meet the standard (which they do not aside from the Prius, according to the EPA), that's entirely irrelevant because it does not mean they will be able to change their entire US lineup to that standard in a mere two years, especially when their best-selling model is the 25 MPG Camry. Even if Obama wrote the industry a literal blank check it would still be almost impossible to make so radical a change in less than two years. Large industries are big unweildy ships that simply cannot change course that quickly. For the record, both GM and Ford will have several new models on the streets here that meet or beat the standard by 2011. That doesn't mean they'll be able to get their entire lineup to that average in two fucking years.

Finally, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Industry fuel economy standards are bullshit, and your country is the only one in the world that imposes them, but that's no surprise given the US government's ass-backward way of doing everything compared to the rest of the world. Everyone else regulates fuel consumption with fuel taxes, and the auto industry themselves have argued this is the best way to reduce fuel consumption, because giving consumers more fuel efficient cars without increasing the price of gas will only encourage people to drive more, partially or fully negating the benefits of the new standards. The onus should be on the fucking consumer to cut back. Before you point out Americans are allergic to taxes, I'll counter that Obama has demonstrated himself to be a pretty savvy politician. He should be able to figure out a way to sell it. It may be impractical to eliminate private car ownership, but Americans could still stand to drive a helluva lot less. Just don't expect the industry to bear the entire burden.
Image
The M2HB: The Greatest Machinegun Ever Made.
HAB: Crew-Served Weapons Specialist


"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." --P.J. O'Rourke

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --J.S. Mill
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Broomstick »

Ma Deuce wrote:
Broomstick wrote:First point: we already have vehicles that meet the standard So don't fucking say "impossible" when we've already done it in a few instances.
Not a single model that is sold in the US market that fits the criteria, excepting hybrids and the smart fortwo.
My car is not a hybrid and my average gas mileage exceeds the stated criteria. Gee, maybe Jeebus touched my miracle car!.
I never said it was impossible to build cars that fuel efficient, only that it was not possible to make the changeover in a mere two years, even though they have the technology now. Clear?
No - because there are already cars that meet that standard, right now, on the road.
"Gravely endangering US auto industry"? Oh, please - they're already fucked.

Then change it to "Gravely endangering the entire economy". If the auto industry is fucked, then so is your entire fucking country, and mine as well: around 1-in-10 North American jobs depend on the auto industry, and it's collapse would instantly transform this recession into a full-on depression, the whole rust belt will become as a third-world country, and Obama's "stimulus" will go right down the toilet, because nothing will be able to recover our economy from that kind of body blow. NOTHING.
Oh, really? We didn't have an economy at all prior to the auto industry? Sure, it might take a long while, but the economy will eventually recover from even that catastrophic a collapse.

And - by the way - we're already in a depression. The rust-belt is already a third world country and has been for some time.

And I'm a little confused - are you an American or a Canadian? Because sometimes you say "you" and sometimes you say "we".
Allowing it to fail is absolutely, positively unacceptable under any circumstances.
Jumping up and down and saying "No!" will not save the US auto industry from collapse. Personally, I think it's already too late to save them. At the very least we'll lose 2 of the 3 no matter what we do. It's like global warming - there's no going back and we need to focus on adapting rather than propping up the dead.
Asian car companies are putting out cars in the US that meets these standards right now (granted, not a lot of them, but they do exit). SOMEBODY saw this coming, why not Detroit? It's because they're a pack of arrogant morons.
Again, except for hybrids, no they are not. GM and Ford are also selling cars in other markets right now that easily meet the standard, but bringing them over here in a two year time frame and selling them in sufficient numbers, is simply not doable since again you'd have to retool to produce them locally to sell them in any significant numbers here, write up new supplier contracts to start getting the parts made locally etc, since those overseas plants were made to serve their market and would not have the capacity to serve North America as well. the cars would also have to be tested and approved by a host of federal agencies (and often modified, as cars sold in other countries are not necessarily street-legal here).
So FUCK those other countries (we're preventing "economic Armageddon" after all, right?), bring those cars over here and sell 'em here since they already meet the standards. Since WHEN do cars have to be produced locally?. My old Ford Festiva was entirely build in Korea - that's not local! Hell, you couldn't even really call it an American car under those circumstances, could you? (In fact, the assembly company is now called "KIA" and is still selling Korean-built cars in the US)
God, I am so fuck sick and tired of constantly responding to the same generic anti-Detroit bullshit.
I came by my anti-US auto industry feelings by growing up in the Detroit area and seeing a remarkable amount of bullshit, spoiled executives, and stupid-ass decisions. What's your excuse?
He's the one that's proposing the 2011 deadline
Right. A proposed deadline - there's a process to go through before it carries the force of law. Perhaps you don't understand how politics works. I expect by the time this is put into effect the usual round of compromises will have it back to 2015-2017. You scare the shit out of the opposition so after compromise they won't bitch so much about the eventual deadline.
Well, bully good for you, I don't give a flying fuck one way or another how much mileage you get out of your treasonmobile, except that it's totally irrelevant.
My "treasonmobile", as you put is, is no such thing. The Toyota assembly plant down the road from where I live is one of the few business keeping it's head above water locally, and employs my neighbors. Really, are you that fucking stupid? The last station wagon my family bought was built in Canada. My last car from Ford was built in Korea. Meanwhile, around Toyotas are on the road that were built in the United States. If I'm supposed to support my neighbors and local economy then I should be buying Toyota because I can't fucking spot a Ford, GM, or Chrysler plant anywhere around here!

Or maybe I should buy a piece of shit car that supports the economy on another fucking continent merely because the name on the ass end of it sounds more English than Japanese or Korean?
Even if the new EPA average is undershooting reality, that's what's going to be used to determine each automaker's compliance to the new standards..
THEN FIX THE FUCKING STANDARDS!

We changed them once before, we can do it again.

What we can't do is continue down the same bullshit-strewn path we have been for the last half century.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Ma Deuce
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4359
Joined: 2004-02-02 03:22pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Ma Deuce »

My car is not a hybrid and my average gas mileage exceeds the stated criteria. Gee, maybe Jeebus touched my miracle car!.
NOT ACCORDING TO THE EPA, WHICH IS WHAT MATTERS TO THIS DISCUSSION. Why can't you get that through your damn head?
No - because there are already cars that meet that standard, right now, on the road.
Irrelevant, if it's not possible to expand production sufficiently in two years. If you think otherwise, then please prove it, because I'm under no obligation to prove a negative.
Oh, really? We didn't have an economy at all prior to the auto industry? Sure, it might take a long while, but the economy will eventually recover from even that catastrophic a collapse.
:roll:
Right, and America existed before electricity either, so I guess it'd be OK to get rid of that too. Christ, how dense are you, can you not appreciate the implications of what you are saying? You are still failing to appreciate the magnitude of such a collapse, and are acting as if we shouldn't even TRY to save the auto industry. It would not simply take a "long while", it would not even happen in our lifetimes, especially if we let the collapse happen amidst the current economic climate, and even then the recovery would never be complete unless a new domestic auto industry rises to take it's place, which the foreigners will fight tooth and nail to stop. Likely this will also rob you of the resources needed to develop and build the alternative energy sources you need for a world without fossil fuels, but I guess you can hope that maybe, just maybe your foreign masters will develop and build if for you.

Besides, when are you Americans going to draw a damn line in the sand. How many more of your industries must be destroyed or taken over by foreigners? Are you going to wait till your country completely loses the ability to design and create things and is effectively owned by foreigners?
And - by the way - we're already in a depression. The rust-belt is already a third world country and has been for some time.
Fine, then an even worse depression that would make the so-called Great Depression look like a mild hiccup. By the way, since the decline of the Rust Belt has been going on for far longer than this recession, we can blame not only the politicians who opened your economy to foreign predation, but also the consumerist traitors who gorged their credit cards on foreign goods.
And I'm a little confused - are you an American or a Canadian? Because sometimes you say "you" and sometimes you say "we".
Canadian, but that shouldn't be a surprise as the US and Canada practically share the same economy, and what happens to you happens to us. I live in an auto industry town (next to Oshawa, Ontario), and would be greatly affected personally by it's collapse. Even up here we call American cars "domestics", and that industry is every bit as important to Canada as it is to the US. I've therefore grown to greatly despise anyone who says it should collapse, as well as people who continue to buy foreign cars even after the dangers of collapse became obvious.
Jumping up and down and saying "No!" will not save the US auto industry from collapse. Personally, I think it's already too late to save them. At the very least we'll lose 2 of the 3 no matter what we do. It's like global warming - there's no going back and we need to focus on adapting rather than propping up the dead.
No it won't save it, which is why that's the government's duty to save them, since they are a vital strategic industry. Even constantly bailing them out would be far preferable to the economic consequences of letting them collapse, and if absolutely necessary (though only after all other options have been exhausted), we could outright nationalize them. The only automaker whose demise I see as absolutely inevitable is Chrysler, but even if none can be saved, it would be foolish and irresponsible to let it happen right now with the rest of the economy already in shambles.
My old Ford Festiva was entirely build in Korea - that's not local!
The Ford Festiva was not sold in any significant numbers here, so the plant had no problem handling the extra load. In this case, those overseas plants will not have the capacity for the kind of massive numbers that will be required. Then there's the point that we want to avoid IMPORTING any of our cars from outside the NAFTA zone if at all possible, even plants actually owned by our own automakers.
I came by my anti-US auto industry feelings by growing up in the Detroit area and seeing a remarkable amount of bullshit, spoiled executives, and stupid-ass decisions. What's your excuse?
How about, I personally know hard working people from the Oshawa plant who would be reduced to flipping burgers at MickyD's and will be forever dependent on government assistance to feed their families, or have been laid off already? Granted there are also some self-entitled Union assholes, but I'm under no inclination to throw any of them to the wolves. Given how many other people are losing their jobs, I see no reason to not to help as many people who still have jobs to keep them. Forget about the executives and think about everyone else who will be affected, will you? Besides, don't pretend that Toyota's executives are any better: Being of the Japanese upper class, many of them are likely sexist, racist scum. Have you ever heard of the "rice ceiling" in Toyota that effectively disallows non-Japanese employees from being promoted above a certain level, plus the company has had several prominent sexual harassment scandals involving mid/high-ranking officials. Are these the people you want dominating your country's auto industry? I'll take the bumbling short sighted Detroit executives any day, thank you.

But if you so desperately want to deliberately collapse your entire country's economy for whatever perverse reason, fine lets make "Traitor Dick" Shelby and those other southern Republicans who tried to block the bailout happy. Here's a happy thought: did you notice how virtually all of the foreign assembly plants are in Republican districts, and how the senate Republicans (incidentally, the ones from the states who have foreign assembly plants) were the ones blocking the bailout? See my previous post about how foreigners will effectively own your country.
Right. A proposed deadline - there's a process to go through before it carries the force of law. Perhaps you don't understand how politics works. I expect by the time this is put into effect the usual round of compromises will have it back to 2015-2017. You scare the shit out of the opposition so after compromise they won't bitch so much about the eventual deadline.
If it gets pushed back to around the original deadline, then I guess we won't have a problem then will we? Let's see if that actually happens.
My "treasonmobile", as you put is, is no such thing.
Actually it is, because like all other Echos it was made in Japan, so your car had zero impact on the well-being of your local Toyota plant, and a net negative effect on your nation's economy as a whole.

Perhaps you've heard of these things called "trade deficits" that are really, really bad, mkay? Even domestically assembled Toyotas are largely designed in Japan, with most of the profit going back there. In any case, only around 50% of all Toyota vehicles (including the Lexus and Scion brands) are actually assembled in the US or Canada, and the domestic parts content is much lower. Meanwhile the ratio for the domestic automakers is in the 80% range, add to the fact that far more of the vehicle is actually designed here. Don't pretend for a second that an American-assembled Toyota is just as American as GM or Fords. Even a Canadian or Mexican made GM would be more American than a US made Toyota.
Meanwhile, around Toyotas are on the road that were built in the United States. If I'm supposed to support my neighbors and local economy then I should be buying Toyota because I can't fucking spot a Ford, GM, or Chrysler plant anywhere around here!
Is that the Princeton plant? A plant that exclusively builds "big fucking trucks" last I checked? So in order to support your friends and neighbors, I guess that means you should buy a gas-guzzling Toyota Tundra or Sequoia? :lol: If the 2011 deadline does go through, lets see if Toyota even attempts to convert that plant, or just shuts it down permanently. Oh, and you're doing more to help your neighbors by buying a GM then any Toyota; why? For one, given Toyota's fragile state at the moment, the economic shockwave caused by the collapse of the American auto industry would drag them down as well. They're not in immediate danger of collapse in and of themselves, but a strong enough push would definitely send them over the edge. Of course, they would never actually fail, because unlike your broken excuse for a government, there is no possibility the Japanese government will not bail them out or do whatever else it takes to keep them afloat should the need arise. Maybe that's why American industry is vanishing: Other governments work with their industries, listen to their concerns, and protect them during hard times. Yours tells it's industries and workers to go to hell, and leaves them wide open to foreign predation by eliminating any and all trade and investment barriers, all for the sake of a handful of disloyal filthy rich investors.

Additionally, if Toyota survives the collapse of GM (which it's government will ensure), it will immediately cut it's wages at it's US plants down to the mean state averages (there was a leaked memo at Toyota that proposed doing just that at the plant in Kentucky, and caused quite a stir), because the only reason it keeps wages where they are is to keep the UAW out of their plants. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they pack up and leave within a decade; They've already admitted that building vehicles in the US is a purely political move, and that from a pure efficiency standpoint they'd be better off simply building everything in Japan. Another thing to consider is the loss of the domestics would eliminate two major corporate taxpayers. That would shift the tax burden onto you the individual. I don't care for some of the shit the UAW has pulled over the years, but their existence is the main thing keeping auto jobs in the United States, even in the non-union foreign shops. At the end of the day, far, far more American workers depend on the domestic auto industry for their livelihood than Toyota, Honda et al, so that makes the choice clear whom you should support. I for one will never buy a foreign made or branded car of any kind; When the time comes to replace my current car, it'll be a GM or Ford made in the US or Canada.
THEN FIX THE FUCKING STANDARDS!

We changed them once before, we can do it again.
Why are you screaming at me about it? If you think the standards are bullshit, then write to the EPA and tell them to change them. Until then, accept that they're going to be used as the basis for any new fuel economy standards. I agreed that it's possible those standards are wrong, so I don't see what you're yabbering about.
What we can't do is continue down the same bullshit-strewn path we have been for the last half century.
Oh I hear that; You, we, cannot afford any more overseas trade deficits, rampant outsourcing, foreigners raping and pillaging our economic organs as your government simply looks on and neoliberal whores like Johnny Freidman extol the glories of globalization, free trade and the "service economy". All that is intrinsically linked to the thinking that led to the credit mess and should be discarded along with it. From now on, the NAFTA zone must be a fortress against overseas imports and investment, just like the EU. It's time you accept that Japan, China and most of your other overseas trade partners don't have your best interests at heart. They call you "Uncle Sap" among themselves, did you know that? They laugh at you for how you've opened your economy to their predation in a manner they would never even consider, as well they should, because it was monumentally stupid to do. One can't blame them for taking advantage of your stupidity, but at the same time they cannot be allowed to continue their wanton plunder of our shared economy. Ending dependence on foreign oil is a worthy goal that should be given high priority, but it must be accomplished without increasing dependence on foreign manufactured goods, because that is simply trading one evil for another.
Image
The M2HB: The Greatest Machinegun Ever Made.
HAB: Crew-Served Weapons Specialist


"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." --P.J. O'Rourke

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --J.S. Mill
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Broomstick »

Ma Deuce wrote:
My car is not a hybrid and my average gas mileage exceeds the stated criteria. Gee, maybe Jeebus touched my miracle car!.
NOT ACCORDING TO THE EPA, WHICH IS WHAT MATTERS TO THIS DISCUSSION. Why can't you get that through your damn head?
Because I deal with observable facts and you don't, apparently.

I just made a 240+ mile road trip yesterday. My gas mileage: 42 mpg. I'm sorry, what part of "verifiable fact" are you having difficulty with? "Government dictates reality" was a meme I had hoped to leave behind with the Bush administration.

If the EPA has a fucked up standard then change it.
Right, and America existed before electricity either, so I guess it'd be OK to get rid of that too. Christ, how dense are you, can you not appreciate the implications of what you are saying? You are still failing to appreciate the magnitude of such a collapse, and are acting as if we shouldn't even TRY to save the auto industry.
I am fully aware of the implications of what I am saying. The difference between you and me is that I believe no matter what the US auto industry is doomed. There is nothing that you, I, or the government can do to fix that. Therefore, throwing money into a hopeless situation is the depths of stupidity.
Besides, when are you Americans going to draw a damn line in the sand. How many more of your industries must be destroyed or taken over by foreigners? Are you going to wait till your country completely loses the ability to design and create things and is effectively owned by foreigners?
I think that for most part that has already happened, with the rich bastards who profitted off the sale making plans to retire to Dubai or something. Therefore, the only thing left for me to do is adapt.
By the way, since the decline of the Rust Belt has been going on for far longer than this recession, we can blame not only the politicians who opened your economy to foreign predation, but also the consumerist traitors who gorged their credit cards on foreign goods.
And, by and large, I was not one of those "consumerist traitors". Granted I did buy a Toyota but that is because I could not find an American car to fit my needs. I am not going to shoot myself in the foot to make a point, I don't have the resources to do that.
Even up here we call American cars "domestics", and that industry is every bit as important to Canada as it is to the US. I've therefore grown to greatly despise anyone who says it should collapse, as well as people who continue to buy foreign cars even after the dangers of collapse became obvious.
Point one here: I don't believe it should collapse, I believe it already has and the corpse simply hasn't stopped twitching yet.

Point two here: As I pointed out, the label on the ass-end says little to nothing about where a car is built. As I pointed out, my Ford Festiva was built entirely in Korean and its manufacture benefited Korea, not Detroit and not your town. It's manufacture employed no Americans or Canadians whatsoever. The profit made most likely stayed in Korea as well. How could it possibly be called either a domestic or American car?
Jumping up and down and saying "No!" will not save the US auto industry from collapse. Personally, I think it's already too late to save them. At the very least we'll lose 2 of the 3 no matter what we do. It's like global warming - there's no going back and we need to focus on adapting rather than propping up the dead.
No it won't save it, which is why that's the government's duty to save them, since they are a vital strategic industry.
I don't think the government is capable of saving it, either. I think the US auto industry is dead, dead, dead and all that's left is the clean-up.
Even constantly bailing them out would be far preferable to the economic consequences of letting them collapse, and if absolutely necessary (though only after all other options have been exhausted), we could outright nationalize them.
Scream all you want - they've already collapsed and the economic fallout has already started. Nationalizing the industry will do nothing - unless you somehow force people to buy products they don't want. It's not simply that US cars cost more, they're shit. The perception is that Japanese cars last longer and require less maintenance in addition to frequently being less expensive. You're asking people to purchase inferior
goods at higher prices - THAT's why the US auto industry is in the shitter, because most people aren't going to do that.
The only automaker whose demise I see as absolutely inevitable is Chrysler, but even if none can be saved, it would be foolish and irresponsible to let it happen right now with the rest of the economy already in shambles.
There's not a damn thing we can do to stop it, regardless of the state of the rest of the economy.
My old Ford Festiva was entirely build in Korea - that's not local!
The Ford Festiva was not sold in any significant numbers here, so the plant had no problem handling the extra load.
No, they just changed their name to "KIA" and are now selling their own vehicles under their own name. Maybe they didn't sell significantly in YOUR area but the Korean factory sold enough to become their own car marker under their own name and start competing with the big boys.
In this case, those overseas plants will not have the capacity for the kind of massive numbers that will be required.
Given the economy is going down the shitter perhaps imports will not be needed in the quantities you imagine.
Then there's the point that we want to avoid IMPORTING any of our cars from outside the NAFTA zone if at all possible, even plants actually owned by our own automakers.
Except they've been importing for decades. Your concern is far, far too late to make a difference.
How about, I personally know hard working people from the Oshawa plant who would be reduced to flipping burgers at MickyD's and will be forever dependent on government assistance to feed their families, or have been laid off already?
How about, instead of a handout, we give them money to go back to school and re-train for a different profession? A bit of a pipe dream, I'll admit, but so is inifinite government support if you're living in the US.

I feel for them, I truly do - I lost my corporate job 15 months ago - but propping up a dead industry long-term is not feasible.
Forget about the executives and think about everyone else who will be affected, will you?
I have already been affected by the Great Depression II but I'm not sitting on my ass saying "woe is me" (well, not often anyway) I'm trying to move on with my life and find a new job and a new career. I'm not asking for a handout for the rest of my life.
Besides, don't pretend that Toyota's executives are any better: Being of the Japanese upper class, many of them are likely sexist, racist scum. Have you ever heard of the "rice ceiling" in Toyota that effectively disallows non-Japanese employees from being promoted above a certain level, plus the company has had several prominent sexual harassment scandals involving mid/high-ranking officials
Yes, I am aware of all that. I suspect I was aware of the character of Japanese auto execs before you were born if you're the average age of a SD.net poster. It does not change my position, which is based on observation and not how I want the world to be.

Do you think the Detroit executives weren't sexist, racist scum? Do you think there wasn't a glass ceiling in the US? Do you think there were no sexual harassment scandals in the US auto industry?
Are these the people you want dominating your country's auto industry?
No, of course not - but they are already in that position. Japanese autos have been dominant for a long time now, anyone saying otherwise is just fooling himself.
I'll take the bumbling short sighted Detroit executives any day, thank you.
It was their short-sightedness and bumbling that allowed this to take place.
Even domestically assembled Toyotas are largely designed in Japan, with most of the profit going back there.
Let me try to explain this again. I live in one of the worst affected rust-belt areas outside of Detroit. We have very few large employers left. Toyota employs many people in my area. We do NOT have a Ford, GM, Chrysler, or any other American auto maker employing people in my area (other than dealerships) we have Toyota employing people here. Folks aren't too fond of, say, Hyundai or Mitsubishi or Kia, or any other foreign maker but they do have some fondness for the Toyota plant which is actually benefiting them. You know - putting food on the table and a roof overhead. Basic survival shit. People aren't going to live in a cardboard box or see their kids go hungry if they can avoid it, and calling them "traitors" because they work for Toyota when the US automakers don't offer employment around here isn't going to change that.
Even a Canadian or Mexican made GM would be more American than a US made Toyota.
No, it would not. Unlike you, I am clear that there is an international border between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico. A Canadian built car is just as foreign as a Japanese one.
Oh, and you're doing more to help your neighbors by buying a GM then any Toyota; why? For one, given Toyota's fragile state at the moment, the economic shockwave caused by the collapse of the American auto industry would drag them down as well.
The US auto industry is already dead and the economy is already going down. Time to stop doing CPR and move on.

GM built cars too expensive for my budget, that are inefficient, that don't get the gas mileage I want/need, and they aren't as durable. Therefore, I did not buy them. They made bad decisions and must deal with the consequences.
Yours tells it's industries and workers to go to hell, and leaves them wide open to foreign predation by eliminating any and all trade and investment barriers, all for the sake of a handful of disloyal filthy rich investors.
Shouldn't you be calling the "disloyal, filthy rich investors" traitors and not those of us who bought quality goods with our limited funds? Forcing people to buy sub-standard, inferior goods in the name of patriotism is not a viable long-term strategy.
That would shift the tax burden onto you the individual.
Probably not - I'm not making enough money to pay income taxes.
I for one will never buy a foreign made or branded car of any kind; When the time comes to replace my current car, it'll be a GM or Ford made in the US or Canada.
So, in a couple of years you'll only be buying used cars?

Get past the notion that ANY company is "too big to fail" - it's not. That's been proven multiple times in the US.
From now on, the NAFTA zone must be a fortress against overseas imports and investment, just like the EU. It's time you accept that Japan, China and most of your other overseas trade partners don't have your best interests at heart.
Incorrect. We should dismantle NAFTA as well. I opposed it from the start because it only really benefitted Canada and Mexico, the US has lost in the arrangement from the start. Every argument you use against buying foreign made cars applies equally to my purchase of Canadian goods. It's not that I have anything against Canada - it's a very nice country, I've enjoyed every visit, we have a lot in common, etc. - but my country does not have an obligation to bleed money for your benefit. Canada does not have the best interests of the US at heart, either. I realize that. Apparently you do not.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Darth Wong »

Broomstick, with all due respect you obviously don't know a damned thing about automobile manufacturing and design. You can't overhaul an entire product line in two years, and the fact that they already make some fuel-efficient cars does not change that fact.

What you're doing is the equivalent of telling somebody that he has 1 week to renovate his entire house by himself, and if he objects, you say "but you already renovated the bathroom; how hard could it be?"

Factories are set up to manufacture a particular product line; you can't simply walk up to a plant that's set up to make pickup trucks and say "OK, tomorrow you make Geo Metros!" And you can't really expect a car company to simply destroy 95% of its product lines overnight and stop manufacture and sale of only the most fuel-efficient models. It takes years to go from scratch to new car models coming off the line; most of the car designs that appear to be done in less time than that are actually incremental designs, ie- they're taking existing designs and slightly altering them.
Incorrect. We should dismantle NAFTA as well. I opposed it from the start because it only really benefitted Canada and Mexico, the US has lost in the arrangement from the start.
Bullshit. The US got guaranteed access to Canadian energy supplies. Or perhaps you are so clueless that you think energy is not an important resource in today's economy?
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Ma Deuce
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4359
Joined: 2004-02-02 03:22pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Ma Deuce »

Because I deal with observable facts and you don't, apparently.
You mean, the EPA doesn't. Take it up with them.
I just made a 240+ mile road trip yesterday. My gas mileage: 42 mpg. I'm sorry, what part of "verifiable fact" are you having difficulty with? "Government dictates reality" was a meme I had hoped to leave behind with the Bush administration.
Apparently, the government does "dictate reality" in this case, because no matter ho much you scream that they're bullshit, the EPA standards still stand and are not going to change. I am through with this line of the argument, since you've apparently committed to being a broken record on this particular point.
I am fully aware of the implications of what I am saying. The difference between you and me is that I believe no matter what the US auto industry is doomed. There is nothing that you, I, or the government can do to fix that.
Actually, the government CAN save the auto industry, by nationalizing it if necessary, and ordinary citizens can help by buying their own country's products. Nationalization has been used by other countries to save major industries, so why can that not be the case here?
Therefore, throwing money into a hopeless situation is the depths of stupidity.
Making the situation worse by allowing collapse is the depth of stupidity.
I think that for most part that has already happened, with the rich bastards who profitted off the sale making plans to retire to Dubai or something. Therefore, the only thing left for me to do is adapt
Or organize a revolution, if it really is that bad.
And, by and large, I was not one of those "consumerist traitors". Granted I did buy a Toyota but that is because I could not find an American car to fit my needs. I am not going to shoot myself in the foot to make a point, I don't have the resources to do that.
No excuses. Some of the poorest people I know (as in, about as poor as you can get while still affording to maintain a car) in fact drive domestics: granted, many were used, but if they can manage, what excuse do you have?
Point one here: I don't believe it should collapse, I believe it already has and the corpse simply hasn't stopped twitching yet.
If that's true of the auto industry, then it's true of your entire country. Maybe you should have elected McCain instead, since his bungling would have put you out of your misery quickly instead of the drawn out agonizing death Obama would preside over.
Point two here: As I pointed out, the label on the ass-end says little to nothing about where a car is built.
The very first character of the car's VIN tells you which country it's made in (J=Japan, 1,4, or 5=USA); Maybe you should learn to read VINs because it's a very useful skill to have, especially for buying used cars or ordering parts if you like to DIY.
As I pointed out, my Ford Festiva was built entirely in Korean and its manufacture benefited Korea, not Detroit and not your town. It's manufacture employed no Americans or Canadians whatsoever. The profit made most likely stayed in Korea as well. How could it possibly be called either a domestic or American car?
And a single, low volume captive import changes the fact that the vast majority of US Fords are made in the US how exactly?
I don't think the government is capable of saving it, either. I think the US auto industry is dead, dead, dead and all that's left is the clean-up.
Other countries have saved industries through nationalization, why can't yours? Additionally, I know one other way: Severely restrict all the foreign marques like some other countries already do. That way, when most people buy a car, it'll have to be American. If Americans won't willingly do what's good for their country, then they'll have to be forced to.

An overseas example is that Russia has imposed stiff tariffs to protect it's auto industry, public opinion be damned, and far it seems to be at least keeping them an even keel. If government intervention can save the Russian car industry of all things, I cannot imagine why the same wouldn't be true in America.
Scream all you want - they've already collapsed and the economic fallout has already started. Nationalizing the industry will do nothing - unless you somehow force people to buy products they don't want.
Actually it can, because the act of nationalization allows them to sell their cars at a loss, undercutting the competition significantly. Some would argue this involves turning the auto industry into a "make work" program, but did you yourself argue that even "make work" is better than no work at all? And what people want to buy is irrelevant, the issue is what they should buy, and if necessary be forced to do it.
It's not simply that US cars cost more, they're shit. The perception is that Japanese cars last longer and require less maintenance in addition to frequently being less expensive.
Japanese cars are rarely less expensive anymore around here perceptions aside. As for reality, how about this: Ford now practically matches any of the Japanese brands in reliability according to any such survey you'd care to name. GM has some models that do this - and admittedly some that do not. Only Chrysler is shitty across the board. As for quality, Toyota has been taking a hit recently thanks to their break-neck expansion progam. They recently had to issue a seatbelt safety recall on the Yaris, and this is only the latest in a string of recalls and quality control snafus that have hit them over the past 3-4 years. Toyota is also very good at propaganda, selling themselves as an "American" company to consumers.
You're asking people to purchase inferior goods at higher prices - THAT's why the US auto industry is in the shitter, because most people aren't going to do that.
Spare me the free market bullshit. Even if that were true, then yeah actually I am asking people to do that, because it's their civic duty as far as I'm concerned. If they wont do it willingly, then yes they should damn well be forced to. That's how you know, the Japanese got their auto industry off the ground in the first place. Their government protected their nascent industries from foreign competition, their workers went the extra mile to ensure the quality of their work, and their citizens dutifully bought their own country's products even when superior foreign alternatives were available, all because they realized it was ultimately in their own personal interest. The fact that Americans aren't willing to do that is an indicator of everything that is wrong with your country, and why you may very well need a dictatorship to fix it.

Of course, it also helped that Japan did drive it's exports back then by manipulating it's currency much as China is now, but that's for another thread. (Japan isn't really doing that anymore, but only because)
There's not a damn thing we can do to stop it, regardless of the state of the rest of the economy
That's not the kind of attitude that made your country or any other successful. Do you think the Japanese 50 years ago looked at the mighty American auto industry and said "whelp, there's no way we can ever compete so we might as well not even try"
No, they just changed their name to "KIA" and are now selling their own vehicles under their own name. Maybe they didn't sell significantly in YOUR area but the Korean factory sold enough to become their own car marker under their own name and start competing with the big boys.
Actually, Kia existed long before Ford bought their stake in them, just not as an automaker. However, Kia has never competed very successfully on their own in that capacity. After they went bankrupt in the '98 Asian financial crisis, Ford sold their stake and Hyundai bought them outright, so today most Kias are mechanically identical to their Hyundai counterparts.

Speaking of Korean automakers, I remember that during the '98 East Asian financial crisis the entire Korean auto industry was in real danger, and it became very common for owners of imported cars in Korea to have rocks thrown at them or their cars otherwise vandalized. Not that I condone vandalism, I only wish Americans were that patriotic about their own industries, but it seems the only kind of patriotism Americans have left is jingoist militarism. Reagan lives.
Except they've been importing for decades. Your concern is far, far too late to make a difference
Only in numbers so limited, they can almost be discounted completely.
How about, instead of a handout, we give them money to go back to school and re-train for a different profession? A bit of a pipe dream, I'll admit, but so is inifinite government support if you're living in the US.
It is a pipe dream. Frankly, nationalizing the industry would probably be cheaper than retraining 8-10% of the entire work force.
I feel for them, I truly do - I lost my corporate job 15 months ago - but propping up a dead industry long-term is not feasible.
Oh, I see what this is: You got fucked over, so now you want everyone else to be fucked over as bad as you?
Do you think the Detroit executives weren't sexist, racist scum? Do you think there wasn't a glass ceiling in the US? Do you think there were no sexual harassment scandals in the US auto industry?
Even if that was true, which admittedly it almost certainly was at some point in history (50-60 years ago, just about everyone, everywhere in power was racist and sexist to some degree) but given the number of women and minorities that now fill positions in GM that in Toyota are still 100% Japanese male, I would say that even if that was the case, it is not anymore but it most certainly still is in Japan.
Do you think the Detroit executives weren't sexist, racist scum? Do you think there wasn't a glass ceiling in the US? Do you think there were no sexual harassment scandals in the US auto industry?
The operating word here is "was". Sexual harassment and glass ceilings continue to be as great a problem as ever in Japanese companies, in large part because of their culture. Ironically, one of these harassment scandals at Toyota's US head office lead to the promotion of Jim Press to be the only American who has ever lead Toyota's North American division. However, he eventually quit and went to Chrysler after over 25 years with Toyota (makes you wonder).
It was their short-sightedness and bumbling that allowed this to take place.
No less than the short-sightedness of American consumers.
No, of course not - but they are already in that position. Japanese autos have been dominant for a long time now, anyone saying otherwise is just fooling himself.
Then how come GM is still in the top spot in the US market? Even if that were so, then a single decree from the government can change that overnight.
Let me try to explain this again. I live in one of the worst affected rust-belt areas outside of Detroit. We have very few large employers left.
And whose fault is that? Oh, right the people who refused to buy American products when the had the chance!
Toyota employs many people in my area. We do NOT have a Ford, GM, Chrysler, or any other American auto maker employing people in my area (other than dealerships) we have Toyota employing people here. Folks aren't too fond of, say, Hyundai or Mitsubishi or Kia, or any other foreign maker but they do have some fondness for the Toyota plant which is actually benefiting them.
So, you'd be inclined to support a domestic automaker if they owned that plant instead of Toyota? Even so, as I stated before, these workers would be doing more to save their own jobs by buying a GM or Ford than they gas-guzzlers their own plant produces. Once the Domestics are gone, Toyota will have no political reason to keep building cars on this continent.
No, it would not. Unlike you, I am clear that there is an international border between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico. A Canadian built car is just as foreign as a Japanese one.
Actually it is, because of the US design and engineering input that is absent from even the vehicles Toyota claims to have "designed" here (which for the record are no more designed in America than Dell designs it's own computers). You are also apparently completely ignorant of the symbiotic relationship our economies have developed under NAFTA, unlike with China or Japan, where they have full access to your market without the reverse being true.
GM built cars too expensive for my budget, that are inefficient, that don't get the gas mileage I want/need, and they aren't as durable. Therefore, I did not buy them.
Price is an excuse. Features are not (though there aren't really any Japanese cars that are cheaper anymore).
I did not buy them. They made bad decisions and must deal with the consequences.
Only as bad as the mistake you made and millions more consumers made.
Shouldn't you be calling the "disloyal, filthy rich investors" traitors and not those of us who bought quality goods with our limited funds?
I thought I did that by calling them "disloyal"?
Forcing people to buy sub-standard, inferior goods in the name of patriotism is not a viable long-term strategy.
How very Republican of you.
So, in a couple of years you'll only be buying used cars?
If necessary, yes. And failing that, some way, somehow I'll try and find a way to do without my own car. Don't think for a second that I won't practice what I preach.
Get past the notion that ANY company is "too big to fail" - it's not. That's been proven multiple times in the US.
Which should never have been allowed to happen, at least in the case of major industries.
Incorrect. We should dismantle NAFTA as well. I opposed it from the start because it only really benefitted Canada and Mexico, the US has lost in the arrangement from the start.
Not true at all. Your country has in fact benefited from NAFTA, and even Obama was forced to eat humble pie and admit that (which makes me somewhat hopeful he'll also have the sense to roll back this deadline to something more reasonable). Not the least of these benefits is easy access to natural resources that you don't have on your own soil and would have to import from somewhere anyway.

Besides, opposing NAFTA while buying Japanese made cars is the height of hypocricy.
I've enjoyed every visit, we have a lot in common, etc. - but my country does not have an obligation to bleed money for your benefit. Canada does not have the best interests of the US at heart, either. I realize that. Apparently you do not.
Actually, we do, because it really is in our interest to have your interests at heart, because as a general rule, what's good for you is good for us, thus it's in our best interest that your economy be healthy and strong. For this reason Canada is the greatest friend your country ever had, even if you don't often appreciate that. That's why NAFTA works so well between the US and Canada, though I can't speak to Mexico, because I really don't know the detail of their trade with the US (though by virtue of being in NAFTA, if they were detrimental to you, they'd probably be to us as well). The level of two-way integration also gives you as much access to our markets as we have to yours, in stark contrast to your arrangements with Japan, China etc. Despite the plants Detroit has here in Canada, far more of our automobiles (80%) are made in the US than any other country, so spare me the bullshit that NAFTA was just another one-sided trade affair.
Image
The M2HB: The Greatest Machinegun Ever Made.
HAB: Crew-Served Weapons Specialist


"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." --P.J. O'Rourke

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --J.S. Mill
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Darth Wong »

Wait, when did everyone agree that the Big Three's business problems were not the unions' fault? Just because Republicans say it, that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. Detroit's problems almost all boil down to their labour issues. Big union reps make a lot of arguments to deflect blame, but they're all various flavours of bullshit:

1) "Even if we worked for free, the industry would still be in huge financial trouble" - that is because of the gigantic over-capacity that has been caused by a combination of union job guarantees, labour actions against plant closures, and of course, loss of competitiveness which was caused by a huge $2000 labour cost added to every domestic car.

2) "The Big Three should have developed more economical cars" - they did. They have plenty of economy models; the problem is that a $2000 labour cost handicap is a lot easier to hide in a $50,000 SUV than it is in a $13,000 econobox.

3) "The Big Three don't know how to make a good economy car" - see above. It was never an engineering problem; it was a cost structure problem.

4) "The Big Three have failed to innovate" - precisely what does this even mean? They have incompetent engineers? No evidence has been provided of this. They aren't bringing out new ideas or technologies at a rate commensurate with other countries' auto industries? Again, no evidence has been provided of this.

Detroit's labour problems could conceivably be solved with government intervention, which would go a looooong way to improving their business position. The idea that the industry is beyond saving is simply absurd.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22466
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Mr Bean »

Darth Wong wrote:
3) "The Big Three don't know how to make a good economy car" - see above. It was never an engineering problem; it was a cost structure problem.
Have to disagree with you here. Car and Driver and the various industry publicans have longed put out lists like "Top ten Economy cars" and that list is normally dominated by Japanese and then European cars. And I should put out more and more Japanese cars are produced in America(In the south to be exact in non-Union shops in Republican districts) The Ford Focus the one "economy" car that is on that list was(And most people point this out) designed by Ford's European division. Keep in mind Darth Wong were we not just talking less than a year ago on this very forum about how GM and Ford and Chrysler keep right on producing SUV's even as the fuel prices shot through the roof and there were issues about Used car dealerships stop accepting SUV's as trade in. We can make arguments about the labor contracts but I really must point out that the collective CEO's at the big three have spent(Aside from the SUV bom) the last two decades going from one failure to another. Honda's economy cars outsell 3-1 or more American economy cars because for the most part they ARE better, more fuel efficient, safer and yes cheaper, that last point can go back into unions, but to be blunt even the more expensive premium versions of the E-con cars are normally worse than the standard Cheap-box that Honda or Toyota makes.

And lets not forget who innovated with Hybrid's, and what Ford did with the technology(Spoiler:They built a Hybrid SUV with it before trying to build a Hybrid Sedan)

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Broomstick »

Ma Deuce wrote:
I just made a 240+ mile road trip yesterday. My gas mileage: 42 mpg. I'm sorry, what part of "verifiable fact" are you having difficulty with? "Government dictates reality" was a meme I had hoped to leave behind with the Bush administration.
Apparently, the government does "dictate reality" in this case, because no matter ho much you scream that they're bullshit, the EPA standards still stand and are not going to change.
If they standards were changed once they can be changed again (though it may be difficult). If the results of those standards does not match reality they SHOULD be changed.
Actually, the government CAN save the auto industry, by nationalizing it if necessary, and ordinary citizens can help by buying their own country's products. Nationalization has been used by other countries to save major industries, so why can that not be the case here?
Because there isn't time. As Mike pointed out, they can't retool in 2 years. They're bleeding money right now. Even if the government attempts to nationalize the industry tomorrow (HIGHLY unlikely in the US, but nevermind) that will not change - they will STILL be bleeding out and they will STILL need more time to retool than they have. They can't be saved. Deal with it.
Therefore, throwing money into a hopeless situation is the depths of stupidity.
Making the situation worse by allowing collapse is the depth of stupidity.
Sometimes you can't save the patient. Expending scarce resources on the doomed is foolish at best.
I think that for most part that has already happened, with the rich bastards who profitted off the sale making plans to retire to Dubai or something. Therefore, the only thing left for me to do is adapt
Or organize a revolution, if it really is that bad.
Advocating the overthrow of the government really is treason. Is that what you are advocating?
No excuses. Some of the poorest people I know (as in, about as poor as you can get while still affording to maintain a car) in fact drive domestics: granted, many were used, but if they can manage, what excuse do you have?
I drove domestics up until 2002, at which I had had enough of dealing with shit vehicles. I needed reliable transportation that wasn't going to deplete my resources. THAT's my excuse.
Point one here: I don't believe it should collapse, I believe it already has and the corpse simply hasn't stopped twitching yet.
If that's true of the auto industry, then it's true of your entire country
Sad to say, but yes, that is a very real possibility. Failure to consider the possibility does not make it magically go away.
Point two here: As I pointed out, the label on the ass-end says little to nothing about where a car is built.
The very first character of the car's VIN tells you which country it's made in (J=Japan, 1,4, or 5=USA); Maybe you should learn to read VINs because it's a very useful skill to have, especially for buying used cars or ordering parts if you like to DIY.
As I have neither the tools nor the space nor the knowledge to fix my cars myself your second point is moot. Right now I have concerns that go way beyond car repair so I don't have much time to pick up yet another new skill.

My Other Half and I decided that rather buy used cars we would buy new ones and keep them for (ideally) 12-15 years which is just as valid an approach as buying used ones.
I don't think the government is capable of saving it, either. I think the US auto industry is dead, dead, dead and all that's left is the clean-up.
Other countries have saved industries through nationalization, why can't yours?
We waited too long to do it. Even nationalizing it will not save it now.
Actually it can, because the act of nationalization allows them to sell their cars at a loss, undercutting the competition significantly. Some would argue this involves turning the auto industry into a "make work" program, but did you yourself argue that even "make work" is better than no work at all?
Yes, make work is better than no work, but at a certain point someone somehow has to pay for producing the make work. You may have noticed a definite lack of money lately....?
And what people want to buy is irrelevant, the issue is what they should buy, and if necessary be forced to do it.
How are you going FORCE people to buy something? Truly? Short of confiscating everyone's current car so they MUST buy new... but good luck with that. It exceeds the limits of believability.
Japanese cars are rarely less expensive anymore around here perceptions aside. As for reality, how about this: Ford now practically matches any of the Japanese brands in reliability according to any such survey you'd care to name
And that has a lot to do with why my pickup is a Ford - purchased 4 years prior to the car. When the pickup wears out, should I choose to buy another pickup, I will re-examine what is available and make what choice is best for me at that time. (I expect the truck might last 20 years if we're lucky).
You're asking people to purchase inferior goods at higher prices - THAT's why the US auto industry is in the shitter, because most people aren't going to do that.
Spare me the free market bullshit. Even if that were true, then yeah actually I am asking people to do that, because it's their civic duty as far as I'm concerned. If they wont do it willingly, then yes they should damn well be forced to.
Except that few people have the money right now to buy ANYTHING in the way of a new vehicle. If times were better your argument would carry more weight, but right now money is so tight people feel they can't afford to take the chance on getting a lemon. Is that fair to carmakers whose quality is top-notch but whose reputations are not? No - but it's an issue an manufacturer has to deal with.
How about, instead of a handout, we give them money to go back to school and re-train for a different profession? A bit of a pipe dream, I'll admit, but so is inifinite government support if you're living in the US.
It is a pipe dream. Frankly, nationalizing the industry would probably be cheaper than retraining 8-10% of the entire work force.
It's stupid to throw money at a doomed industry. Long term we really would be better off putting the money to retraining workers.
I feel for them, I truly do - I lost my corporate job 15 months ago - but propping up a dead industry long-term is not feasible.
Oh, I see what this is: You got fucked over, so now you want everyone else to be fucked over as bad as you?
Nope - not only do I NOT want everyone fucked over, I'd much prefer to get a nice new job myself. I really, really would like a stable form of employment again, truly I would.
It was their short-sightedness and bumbling that allowed this to take place.
No less than the short-sightedness of American consumers.
Yep. Hey, I'm considered VERY strange around her because I avoid Wal-Mart like the plague, for much the reasons you give. The difference is that the money I spend at other local businesses really do help them survive - I don't believe money thrown at the US auto industry will do a damn bit of good.
No, of course not - but they are already in that position. Japanese autos have been dominant for a long time now, anyone saying otherwise is just fooling himself.
Then how come GM is still in the top spot in the US market?
Trucks and SUVs, mostly.
Even if that were so, then a single decree from the government can change that overnight.
Not in the US. I don't often argue for "the US is special" but the cutlural resistance to nationalism is so great, and the fucking stubborness in the population is so great, that "a single decree" might well backfire in ugly ways. You've got people programmed from birth to think nationalizing industries is the same as surrending to the commie hordes, that won't change with a "single decree"
Let me try to explain this again. I live in one of the worst affected rust-belt areas outside of Detroit. We have very few large employers left.
And whose fault is that? Oh, right the people who refused to buy American products when the had the chance!
I and my family bought American cars until 2002. Please don't imply we didn't support our fellow Americans. However, these days even if there's an American name on the back of the car there's no gaurantee any American had a hand in building it past the drawing stage.
Toyota employs many people in my area. We do NOT have a Ford, GM, Chrysler, or any other American auto maker employing people in my area (other than dealerships) we have Toyota employing people here. Folks aren't too fond of, say, Hyundai or Mitsubishi or Kia, or any other foreign maker but they do have some fondness for the Toyota plant which is actually benefiting them.
So, you'd be inclined to support a domestic automaker if they owned that plant instead of Toyota?
Yes, abosolutely. If, for example, Ford was a local employer I would certainly have argued in favor of a Ford rather than a Toyota (my two prior subcompacts were, after all, Fords). I have a long history of being willign to pay a little more to support local businesses because I am aware that that does come back to benefit me.

But Ford didn't build a plant near me, Toyota did. If Toyota packs up and (hypothetcially) GM moves in and starts employing my neighbors that would certainly induce me to take another look at their product line.
Even so, as I stated before, these workers would be doing more to save their own jobs by buying a GM or Ford than they gas-guzzlers their own plant produces.
Contrary to your assumption, the employee lots at the plant are not entirely filled with "gas guzzling" SUV's and trucks. There are quite a few sedans and subcompacts visible (my old commuter train ran right next to that plant, I could easily see the parking lots from it)
You are also apparently completely ignorant of the symbiotic relationship our economies have developed under NAFTA,
Symbiotic? The first thing that happened after NAFTA was signed was that lots of factories moved from the US to elsewhere in North America, resulting in a loss of jobs in the US. Access to fuel sources and few other things does not entirely make up for that. Canada and Mexico benefited more from NAFTA than the US did.
GM built cars too expensive for my budget, that are inefficient, that don't get the gas mileage I want/need, and they aren't as durable. Therefore, I did not buy them.
Price is an excuse. Features are not (though there aren't really any Japanese cars that are cheaper anymore).
Yes, features are not - too many American cars were loaded down with bullshit I didn't need or want. I want a basic car. I don't need a satellite navigation system (as an example) and I don't want to pay for one. And so on. The US auto makers kept saying there wasn't a market for small, basic cars and yet somehow the foreign guys keep selling them. Ford, I will give them credit, does keep trying (Escort, Festiva, etc.)
I did not buy them. They made bad decisions and must deal with the consequences.
Only as bad as the mistake you made and millions more consumers made.
Right. After decades of buying American I buy a Toyota. That makes me wholly responsible for the collapse of the US auto industry. :roll:

I supported the US auto makers since I first learned to drive, but they decided to move the factories to other countries (including yours), not me.
Shouldn't you be calling the "disloyal, filthy rich investors" traitors and not those of us who bought quality goods with our limited funds?
I thought I did that by calling them "disloyal"?
"Traitor" is quite a bit worse than "disloyal". Let me put it this way - in this country you can be "disloyal" and get away with it under free speech. The constituion says "treason" carries the death penalty. "Treason" is quite a bit worse than "disloyal".
Forcing people to buy sub-standard, inferior goods in the name of patriotism is not a viable long-term strategy.
How very Republican of you.
Yes, it worked out really good for the USSR and Eastern Europe, didn't it?
So, in a couple of years you'll only be buying used cars?
If necessary, yes. And failing that, some way, somehow I'll try and find a way to do without my own car. Don't think for a second that I won't practice what I preach.
I don't doubt it. I lived without a car most of the years I lived in Chicago. It's an entirely viable option in SOME places.
Incorrect. We should dismantle NAFTA as well. I opposed it from the start because it only really benefitted Canada and Mexico, the US has lost in the arrangement from the start.
Not true at all. Your country has in fact benefited from NAFTA, and even Obama was forced to eat humble pie and admit that (which makes me somewhat hopeful he'll also have the sense to roll back this deadline to something more reasonable). Not the least of these benefits is easy access to natural resources that you don't have on your own soil and would have to import from somewhere anyway.
Of course, if we ever manage to break our petrol addiction you can take your tar sands and shove 'em in the orifice of your choice. Other than that, what resources do you have that the US does not?

NAFTA benefited Canada and Mexico far, far more than it did the US.
Besides, opposing NAFTA while buying Japanese made cars is the height of hypocricy.
As I said, when Ford/GM/Chrysler start employing my neighbors I'll reconsider buying their goods in preference to the maker who currently employs my neighbors. Buying cars built in Mexico or Canada when my neighbors are unemployed does not help anyone in my neighborhood.
Actually, we do, because it really is in our interest to have your interests at heart, because as a general rule, what's good for you is good for us, thus it's in our best interest that your economy be healthy and strong. For this reason Canada is the greatest friend your country ever had, even if you don't often appreciate that.
It's not that I don't appreciate Canadian support, it's just that I believe that if it ever came down to you or us Canada would throw the US under the bus. As you point out, you have marketable resources. You could (and do) sell those to countries other than the US. If the US disappeared tomorrow it would be a Canadian catastrophe, but you'd recover eventually and probably do quite well in the long run.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Broomstick »

Darth Wong wrote:1) "Even if we worked for free, the industry would still be in huge financial trouble" - that is because of the gigantic over-capacity that has been caused by a combination of union job guarantees, labour actions against plant closures, and of course, loss of competitiveness which was caused by a huge $2000 labour cost added to every domestic car.
You forgot to mention the cost of private health care which ALSO figures into that $2k labor cost for each car. Granted, that's not limited to autos - it poisons ALL manufacturing in the US.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Darth Wong »

Mr Bean wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
3) "The Big Three don't know how to make a good economy car" - see above. It was never an engineering problem; it was a cost structure problem.
Have to disagree with you here. Car and Driver and the various industry publicans have longed put out lists like "Top ten Economy cars" and that list is normally dominated by Japanese and then European cars.
Jesus fucking Christ, what part of "it's hard to design a $13000 car when you start with a $2000 cost handicap" did you not understand? Of course that list is dominated by cars which don't have this huge cost penalty. It doesn't mean the cars will cost $2000 more; it means they will cost the same, in an attempt to compete, but the designers will be told "hey, find a way to cut $2000 out of the production cost of this car without compromising performance or quality": an impossible task.
And I should put out more and more Japanese cars are produced in America(In the south to be exact in non-Union shops in Republican districts) The Ford Focus the one "economy" car that is on that list was(And most people point this out) designed by Ford's European division.
And how does any of this disprove the point about unions and labour costs?
Keep in mind Darth Wong were we not just talking less than a year ago on this very forum about how GM and Ford and Chrysler keep right on producing SUV's even as the fuel prices shot through the roof and there were issues about Used car dealerships stop accepting SUV's as trade in.
Which they ideally would not have done, but which nevertheless is not the principal cause of their woes, and more importantly, it is not the principal roadblock to their recovery. Even if they stopped designing any new SUVs five years ago, they would still be saddled with huge excess labour costs. Moreover, the foreign manufacturers were actually making the same decision, and starting to roll out their own gigantically oversized SUVs.
We can make arguments about the labor contracts but I really must point out that the collective CEO's at the big three have spent(Aside from the SUV bom) the last two decades going from one failure to another. Honda's economy cars outsell 3-1 or more American economy cars because for the most part they ARE better, more fuel efficient, safer and yes cheaper, that last point can go back into unions, but to be blunt even the more expensive premium versions of the E-con cars are normally worse than the standard Cheap-box that Honda or Toyota makes.
Why don't you try designing an economy car with a $2000 cost handicap, and try to make it equal in quality to the competition? When you try to design something with a proportionally huge cost handicap like that, you're going to be forced to cut corners not just in one place, but in countless places.
And lets not forget who innovated with Hybrid's, and what Ford did with the technology(Spoiler:They built a Hybrid SUV with it before trying to build a Hybrid Sedan)
Irrelevant to the stupid argument that they can't innovate. They can, as GM demonstrated by making an all-electric car even if it didn't go anywhere, but they start every race with a large disadvantage, and they tried various methods from ingenious to desperate to stupid, in an attempt to make up that disadvantage.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Darth Wong »

Broomstick wrote:NAFTA benefited Canada and Mexico far, far more than it did the US.
This is the second time you've posted this claim. Care to back it up, using some method other than repeating yourself or pretending that energy is irrelevant?
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

I'll never buy an American-built car in my life, even if I have to pay a 100% import tariff, to be blunt. The quality is just sheer unadulterated crap, and no attention is paid to the process of considering ergonomics, layout, and driving behaviour to allow for the maximum performance of the vehicle to be obtained by a skilled driver; they're automatic kludgebuckets. The inevitable destruction of the American auto industry (not the entire auto industry, just the American), must simply be mitigated by government investment in its alternatives, i.e., buses, especially electric ones, light rail and streetcar vehicles, long distance railcars.. The replacement of trucks with more railcars and barges, laying more steel, digging more canals, building more nuclear powerplants and dams. All of these are major investments that require a huge number of workers and with state-directed and state-controlled investment can replace the automotive industry as part of a new, healthier American economy.

I find it funny how our resident Canadian auto-worker is accusing Americans of being treasonous to America, but of course the moment it's suggested that NAFTA is a bad thing he goes berserk. Protectionism is not going to solve our problems, whereas mass investment in different sectors of the economy to develop them against this impending failure will. And really, Detroit doesn't even have to introduce hybrids to meet these requirements. They could just modify their existing vehicles to run with diesel engines from their European divisions to meet the standards. And of course the money to build new refineries oriented to the mass production of diesel fuel instead of gas would provide more jobs, and further stimulate the economy. But no, we can't force Americans to buy diesels, now, can we? We need to keep driving gas-powered hummers straight off the cliff!
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Obama reverses Bush policies on emissions control

Post by Darth Wong »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I'll never buy an American-built car in my life, even if I have to pay a 100% import tariff, to be blunt. The quality is just sheer unadulterated crap, and no attention is paid to the process of considering ergonomics, layout, and driving behaviour to allow for the maximum performance of the vehicle to be obtained by a skilled driver; they're automatic kludgebuckets.
And these subjective criticisms are worth ... what, precisely? Upon what do you base your assessment of their engineering methods? The problem is that their designers are hamstrung by cost handicaps.

I've driven GM cars, Ford cars, Toyotas, and a Subaru (all for years at a time, not just a test drive). Frankly, I prefer the old domestic car interiors: the decision to make a faux stick shift on all automatic-tranny cars cost us all the middle seat, which can come in handy in a lot of circumstances. Now the domestics have followed the imports' lead on that front, which annoys me further. In any case, a lot of the attitude about differences in layout is just inflexibility: you become accustomed to a certain style of layout, and when you try to use a different one it takes a while to get used to it.
The inevitable destruction of the American auto industry (not the entire auto industry, just the American), must simply be mitigated by government investment in its alternatives, i.e., buses, especially electric ones, light rail and streetcar vehicles, long distance railcars.. The replacement of trucks with more railcars and barges, laying more steel, digging more canals, building more nuclear powerplants and dams. All of these are major investments that require a huge number of workers and with state-directed and state-controlled investment can replace the automotive industry as part of a new, healthier American economy.
It's a great idea to invest in alternative-transportation methods. But allowing the domestic auto industry to die is ridiculous, especially when we just pumped $700 billion into the banks in order to keep them from dying and we could massively improve the much more economically beneficial auto industry with a small fraction of those expenditures.
I find it funny how our resident Canadian auto-worker is accusing Americans of being treasonous to America, but of course the moment it's suggested that NAFTA is a bad thing he goes berserk. Protectionism is not going to solve our problems, whereas mass investment in different sectors of the economy to develop them against this impending failure will. And really, Detroit doesn't even have to introduce hybrids to meet these requirements. They could just modify their existing vehicles to run with diesel engines from their European divisions to meet the standards. And of course the money to build new refineries oriented to the mass production of diesel fuel instead of gas would provide more jobs, and further stimulate the economy. But no, we can't force Americans to buy diesels, now, can we? We need to keep driving gas-powered hummers straight off the cliff!
The import manufacturers aren't selling diesel cars either: the difficulty of marketing diesel cars in America is not relevant to the idea that the domestic auto industry can't or shouldn't be saved.

Idealists often cause far more harm than they prevent, by advocating violent, wrenching solutions to problems and forgetting that real human beings get caught up in these upheavals. Change should always be controlled and gradual; there are no cases in history where large-scale change took place very rapidly without causing human suffering as a result.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Post Reply