Will California bring the entire country down?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Theres the saying "As California goes, so does the nation". The Golden State is in a fiscal tailspin. Tens of billions of dollars in a deficit Hundreds of Billions in debt, IOU's given out, illegal immigration rampant, people moving to other states, it doesnt look too good for CA. I think the Feds will have to bail out CA, looks like a strong possibility.

[furie]

http://www.biographyonline.net/politicians/american/images/arnold_schwarzenegger.jpg

it's all part of the plan.
The Austrians are paying us back for WWI

[A.J.]

Considering the garbage coming out of Hollywood, it's already brought down the nation's IQ.

[disneyspy]

thats saying has more to do with social issues,an older saying and what you are pointing at is "as goes michigan..."

with detroit hitting 50% uneployment and the average house selling for 7K your hero,the criminal know as W,fucked over the manufactoring state and in turn the country. Ford is bringing back workers and it has had a ripple effect,look for the country to start getting out of the mess that POS got us into

[opie's twisted balls]

I always thought Rhode Island was the linchpin keeping the US together.

[Dude!]

thats saying has more to do with social issues,an older saying and what you are pointing at is "as goes michigan..."

with detroit hitting 50% uneployment and the average house selling for 7K your hero,the criminal know as W,fucked over the manufactoring state and in turn the country. Ford is bringing back workers and it has had a ripple effect,look for the country to start getting out of the mess that POS got us into

um, Ford restructured in the Bush era
that's why they are the only car company
doing well

GM and Chrysler kept doing
the same old same old

none of the car companies
was managed by Bush

2 of the car companies are
now managed by obama
and they are the ones failing

[Death Metal Moe]

As goes Arkansas.....no one cares.

[furie]

thats saying has more to do with social issues,an older saying and what you are pointing at is "as goes michigan..."

with detroit hitting 50% uneployment and the average house selling for 7K your hero,the criminal know as W,fucked over the manufactoring state and in turn the country. Ford is bringing back workers and it has had a ripple effect,look for the country to start getting out of the mess that POS got us into

dude, Detroit's been in a steep and steady decline since the 70's.
NAFTA did more damage to that city than anything Bush did. What act did he take that brought them to the state they're in?

[Suspect Chin]

I thought it was 'As Ohio goes, so does the nation'.

[underdog]

thats saying has more to do with social issues,an older saying and what you are pointing at is "as goes michigan..."

with detroit hitting 50% uneployment and the average house selling for 7K your hero,the criminal know as W,fucked over the manufactoring state and in turn the country. Ford is bringing back workers and it has had a ripple effect,look for the country to start getting out of the mess that POS got us into

Illegal immigration is what is hurting Detroit.

[A.J.]

I thought it was 'As Ohio goes, so does the nation'.

I think that's only in Presidential elections.

[epo]

Illegal immigration is what is hurting Detroit.

Look what illegal immigration did to the Milwaukee Brewers pitching staff last year. Those pricks are ruining everything!

[disneyspy]

dude, Detroit's been in a steep and steady decline since the 70's.
NAFTA did more damage to that city than anything Bush did. What act did he take that brought them to the state they're in?

the tax breaks for companies to LEAVE the country when they should have been punished,the unfair trade policies,the stupid war that shot up gas prices (what a petty fuck),letting wall street dictate that paper pushing and the idea of what money should be worth instead of GDP were all very unhelpful

[Dude!]

the tax breaks for companies to LEAVE the country when they should have been punished,the unfair trade policies,the stupid war that shot up gas prices (what a petty fuck),letting wall street dictate that paper pushing and the idea of what money should be worth instead of GDP were all very unhelpful

designing shitty cars
made by grossly overpaid union labor
is what killed GM and Chrysler

the rest is just fluff

[epo]

designing shitty cars
made by grossly overpaid union labor
is what killed GM and Chrysler

the rest is just fluff

Keep following the talking points! Blame the union!

[Dude!]

Keep following the talking points! Blame the union!

pshaw...
you're the one who uses
the playbook handed to him
by the lefties

by the way, how is
healthcare 'reform' going?

[JohnGacysCrawlSpace]

California has been dragging this country down since 1849. Oh, and fuck Iowa, while we're at it.

[epo]

pshaw...
you're the one who uses
the playbook handed to him
by the lefties

by the way, how is
healthcare 'reform' going?

Blaming the unions is asinine and you know it. The "costs" by workers were manipulated to include retirees vs. other automakers who aren't in a mature model. The realistic difference of unionized labor vs. un-unionized labor in American built cars had ZERO to do with Detroit's problems.

[Dude!]

Blaming the unions is asinine and you know it. The "costs" by workers were manipulated to include retirees vs. other automakers who aren't in a mature model. The realistic difference of unionized labor vs. un-unionized labor in American built cars had ZERO to do with Detroit's problems.

wow...
keep following the talking points!

[epo]

wow...
keep following the talking points!

I know...facts hurt your head. Thinking is a bitch for simpletons.

Edit: I just looked it up...Detroit unionized workers made $28.42/hour. Non-unionized workers made approximately $26/hour.

That makes my point.

[furie]

wow...
keep following the talking points!

zing!

[SonOfSmeagol]

IEdit: I just looked it up...Detroit unionized workers made $28.42/hour. Non-unionized workers made approximately $26/hour.

I agree with you - unions just don't matter that much - we could probably do without them.

[Dudeman]

Theres the saying "As California goes, so does the nation". The Golden State is in a fiscal tailspin. Tens of billions of dollars in a deficit Hundreds of Billions in debt, IOU's given out, illegal immigration rampant, people moving to other states, it doesnt look too good for CA. I think the Feds will have to bail out CA, looks like a strong possibility.

The downfall of California is unquestionably tied to Prop 13. All the anti-tax right wing wacko's should take a look. It was a consequence of the reagan governorship (although passed in the 70's), and among other things has devistated the once best public higher education system in the world.

for a little background:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1904938,00.html

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Blaming the unions is asinine and you know it. The "costs" by workers were manipulated to include retirees vs. other automakers who aren't in a mature model. The realistic difference of unionized labor vs. un-unionized labor in American built cars had ZERO to do with Detroit's problems.

GM and Chrysler built awful cars and had bad business models

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Illegal immigration is what is hurting Detroit.

We need to keep those educated caucasians with their weird sports and pathetic beer out of America. The French ones are twice as bad

[WRESTLINGFAN]

The downfall of California is unquestionably tied to Prop 13. All the anti-tax right wing wacko's should take a look. It was a consequence of the reagan governorship (although passed in the 70's), and among other things has devistated the once best public higher education system in the world.

for a little background:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1904938,00.html

Don't forget the court turning over prop 187, Which intended to deny social services and public assistance services to illegal aliens

http://ccir.net/REFERENCE/187-History.html

[Dudeman]

Don't forget the court turning over prop 187, Which intended to deny social services and public assistance services to illegal aliens

http://ccir.net/REFERENCE/187-History.html

The consequences of prop187 are miniscule compared to prop13. The problems in CA started long before prop187. But trying to blame things on immigrants is good for the talking points.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

The consequences of prop187 are miniscule compared to prop13. The problems in CA started long before prop187. But trying to blame things on immigrants is good for the talking points.

Nice try with the talking points, the blame isn't on immigrants its on Illegal Aliens and the enablers, business owners and other supporters. This problem has put a huge dent in Californias fiscal problems. Those jackpot babies they produce have to be subsidized by the taxpayers.


February 5, 2010
The Signal

Approximately 23 percent of all CALWORKS and food stamp issuances in Los Angeles County are made to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their native-born children.

"When you add this to $350 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year - not including the millions of dollars for education," Antonovich said.

[Dudeman]

Nice try with the talking points, the blame isn't on immigrants its on Illegal Aliens and the enablers, business owners and other supporters. This problem has put a huge dent in Californias fiscal problems. Those jackpot babies they produce have to be subsidized by the taxpayers.


February 5, 2010
The Signal

Approximately 23 percent of all CALWORKS and food stamp issuances in Los Angeles County are made to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their native-born children.

"When you add this to $350 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year - not including the millions of dollars for education," Antonovich said.

Like I said, the problems were clearly evident long before prop 187 and coincided with the passage and implimentation of prop 13. The reality is the problem is multifactorial at least, but to think prop187 is the source doesn't explain the problems and changes that occured in CA in the 80's and early 90's.

[furie]

the tax breaks for companies to LEAVE the country when they should have been punished

NAFTA as i said before

the unfair trade policies

NAFTA

the stupid war that shot up gas prices (what a petty fuck)

it didn't hurt the japanese imports any. it wasn't the war, it was the fact that the us cars were still getting gas mileage only marginally better than what they were getting during the 70's gas crisis. once again, detroit lacked vision and we all paid the price.

letting wall street dictate that paper pushing and the idea of what money should be worth instead of GDP were all very unhelpful

seriously?

----------------
Now playing: Adam Ferrara - Hollywood Girls & New York Chicks (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/adam+ferrara/track/hollywood+girls+%26+new+york+chicks)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

[Syd]

it didn't hurt the japanese imports any. it wasn't the war, it was the fact that the us cars were still getting gas mileage only marginally better than what they were getting during the 70's gas crisis. once again, detroit lacked vision and we all paid the price.

If GM had tried to deliver better fuel economy while in the midst of the SUV craze, the shareholders would have anyone involved ousted. Capitalism is driving things to the brink of a cliff, shrugging, and then barreling ass right over it. The people got paid from the massive earnings during the SUV craze and got paid upon their semi-forced resignations. Thanks to years of corporate propaganda and the necessity of constantly kowtowing to businesses in a post-Reagan America those that were left at GM were comfortable in knowing that the company would have plenty of support from DC.

[brettmojo]

Theres the saying "As California goes, so does the nation". .
There is?

[Bob Impact]

If GM had tried to deliver better fuel economy while in the midst of the SUV craze, the shareholders would have anyone involved ousted. Capitalism is driving things to the brink of a cliff, shrugging, and then barreling ass right over it. The people got paid from the massive earnings during the SUV craze and got paid upon their semi-forced resignations. Thanks to years of corporate propaganda and the necessity of constantly kowtowing to businesses in a post-Reagan America those that were left at GM were comfortable in knowing that the company would have plenty of support from DC.

1) That still doesn't explain why the shareholders of Toyota and Honda didn't flip shit about fuel efficient vehicles. Or why GM crowed pretty loudly in the 90's about the EV1 - i dunno 100 that never came to be, the EV was a colossal waste of money when the battery technology wasn't nearly ready yet forced on them by the CARB mandates out of... wait for it... CALIFORNIA!

Also, Government intervention into the marketplace != Capitalism

[underdog]

1) That still doesn't explain why the shareholders of Toyota and Honda didn't flip shit about fuel efficient vehicles. Or why GM crowed pretty loudly in the 90's about the EV1 - i dunno 100 that never came to be, the EV was a colossal waste of money when the battery technology wasn't nearly ready yet forced on them by the CARB mandates out of... wait for it... CALIFORNIA!

You should watch "Who Killed The Electric Car".

[Bob Impact]

You should watch "Who Killed The Electric Car".

I've heard of it before but haven't seen it so I'll reserve judgment until I do. I assume they bring up the "stock" things about this subject, that demand would have equalized had GM marketed it enough, that GM didn't sell the car (only leased it) and that GM didn't build on what they learned during tech development. These can all be debated, and make interesting conversation but until I actually see it I'm certainly not going to argue for or against the movie.

[underdog]

I've heard of it before but haven't seen it so I'll reserve judgment until I do. I assume they bring up the "stock" things about this subject, that demand would have equalized had GM marketed it enough, that GM didn't sell the car (only leased it) and that GM didn't build on what they learned during tech development. These can all be debated, and make interesting conversation but until I actually see it I'm certainly not going to argue for or against the movie.

Your battery comment is really what made me think of the movie. There was some crazy, fishy shit going down with the whole battery thing. The movie made it seem (quite well, I might add) that the Evo1 never failed, it was just killed.

[Dude!]

Your battery comment is really what made me think of the movie. There was some crazy, fishy shit going down with the whole battery thing. The movie made it seem (quite well, I might add) that the Evo1 never failed, it was just killed.

your new avatar is hot

[Serpico1103]

Your battery comment is really what made me think of the movie. There was some crazy, fishy shit going down with the whole battery thing. The movie made it seem (quite well, I might add) that the Evo1 never failed, it was just killed.

The company producing the battery was a family owned small shop. Exxon or some other petroleum corporation (big bad corporation) bought the company. Then decided the batteries were not worth the trouble and closed the battery company.

[Bob Impact]

The company producing the battery was a family owned small shop. Exxon or some other petroleum corporation (big bad corporation) bought the company. Then decided the batteries were not worth the trouble and closed the battery company.



Do you have any specific proof of this occuring? It's not incredibly far fetched but it's the first I've heard of exxon buying what you're implying was a sole source supplier for gm and shutting them down. If that did happen I would imagine gm was furious.

[furie]

You should watch "Who Killed The Electric Car".

i remember that ,movie put a lot of the blame on the dealers, who couldn't make any money off of the cars since they didn't need the same maintenance that regular combustion cars need.

----------------
Now playing: Chris Isaak - Wicked Game (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/chris+isaak/track/wicked+game)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

[Serpico1103]

Do you have any specific proof of this occuring? It's not incredibly far fetched but it's the first I've heard of exxon buying what you're implying was a sole source supplier for gm and shutting them down. If that did happen I would imagine gm was furious.

That was part of the money. I remembered it. Old couple invented the battery technology and started a company. Large corporation bought them out.
Than the ninjas killed everyone. Wait maybe it was a different movie.
GM I think may have partnered with the petrol corporation. GM was happy to stop EV production. Bush was pushing natural gas. They opened some natural gas stations.

[Bob Impact]

I guess my point is this: if exxon fucked gm that hard I would be suprised. Even if they did, the fact that this battery was made by an old couple and according to this story absolutely nobody else would seem to indicate to me that there is little chance that it was ever capable of supporting a mass produced car.

[Serpico1103]

I guess my point is this: if exxon fucked gm that hard I would be suprised. Even if they did, the fact that this battery was made by an old couple and according to this story absolutely nobody else would seem to indicate to me that there is little chance that it was ever capable of supporting a mass produced car.

Chevron holds the patents to the batteries which it refuses to sell and will not produce the batteries.
The batteries seemed to work fine. Look at the advances we have had since than, was it really a brick wall or just a speed bump. To not try and continue with electric cars was a huge step backwards.
But, almost all of the people close to Bush were oil and auto executives. Not exactly a friendly crowd looking for innovation. We see now how well the auto industry does with innovation.

[Bob Impact]

Chevron holds the patents to the batteries which it refuses to sell and will not produce the batteries.
The batteries seemed to work fine. Look at the advances we have had since than, was it really a brick wall or just a speed bump. To not try and continue with electric cars was a huge step backwards.
But, almost all of the people close to Bush were oil and auto executives. Not exactly a friendly crowd looking for innovation. We see now how well the auto industry does with innovation.

The EV1 was dead before Bush came into office.

[furie]

The EV1 was dead before Bush came into office.

he killed it when he owned the Astros. he's THAT evil!

[Serpico1103]

The EV1 was dead before Bush came into office.

The program was not killed until 2003. GWB was in office 2001-2009. I am not saying GWB was the cause. I am saying that his administration did not push GM to continue it. They did the opposite, encouraged them to stop it.
GM probably would have stopped any way. Unless, an administration made it a priority.

[furie]

the last EV1 was produced in 1999

[Serpico1103]

the last EV1 was produced in 1999

The program did not end until 2003.

[furie]

The program did not end until 2003.

right. but if they stopped making them in 1999, the decision was made to kill the program in 1999. it just took them till 2003 to recall and collect all the models that were on the road

[Syd]

1) That still doesn't explain why the shareholders of Toyota and Honda didn't flip shit about fuel efficient vehicles.

They flipped out because Toyota and Honda had no massive SUVs. Honda went and badge engineered stuff immediately and Toyota was nearly lock-step with Ford and GM for monstrously oversized vehicles for women and mid-life crisis-ers.

Also, government intervention IS capitalism. Once a corporate entity has enough sway, it can demand the populace pay for its mistakes. This is why regulation is important so that no business can ever sway society so greatly.

[Serpico1103]

right. but if they stopped making them in 1999, the decision was made to kill the program in 1999. it just took them till 2003 to recall and collect all the models that were on the road

The program was closed when they were assured the government would not push the electric car issue. It was not tied to recalling the cars.
I am sorry if my reference to GWB has bothered you.
Court cases were being heard after 1999. If certain laws were implemented, GM may have continued the program.

[furie]

The program was closed when they were assured the government would not push the electric car issue. It was not tied to recalling the cars.
I am sorry if my reference to GWB has bothered you.
Court cases were being heard after 1999. If certain laws were implemented, GM may have continued the program.

i'm not bothered. i'm just saying that the 4 years after the production line ended was a formality.

[Serpico1103]

i'm not bothered. i'm just saying that the 4 years after the production line ended was a formality.

Again, a favorable administration, not saying AL Gore would have, could have pressured/encouraged GM to continue looking at electric cars.
Instead GWB encouraged the automakers to look at natural gas and discouraged electricity.
The EV-1 was not the answer, it was a step.
The only reason GM started looking at electric cars was government pressure. Had they took the initiative than and continued through, would we be slaves to foreign innovation.

[underdog]

Do you have any specific proof of this occuring? It's not incredibly far fetched but it's the first I've heard of exxon buying what you're implying was a sole source supplier for gm and shutting them down. If that did happen I would imagine gm was furious.

I don't think it was Exxon, I think it was Chevron, as someone else said. They saw this as a competition, bought it and eliminated it. They made the cost of the batteries skyrocket and then just stopped selling them altogether.

And I would not doubt that GM was paid by Chevron through this deal. If the batteries and the EV1 were serious competition to the gas companies, they'd pay a lot of money to close them down.

I haven't watched the movie in a while, but I would def suggest checking it out. It was very interesting, to say the least. Between this movie, Smartest Guys In The Room and Food Inc, I really fucking hate big business.

[furie]

Had they took the initiative than and continued through, would we be slaves to foreign innovation.

ok, now you lost me, that makes no sense. you just flipped your position.

[Serpico1103]

ok, now you lost me, that makes no sense. you just flipped your position.

Explain?
Gm waited until the government forced them to act. Instead of looking to innovate. Now, we look to foreign companies for innovation.
The automakers are bankrupt. Would leading the world into the electric age, or other innovations, saved them.

[Serpico1103]

I don't think it was Exxon, I think it was Chevron, as someone else said. They saw this as a competition, bought it and eliminated it. They made the cost of the batteries skyrocket and then just stopped selling them altogether.
And I would not doubt that GM was paid by Chevron through this deal. If the batteries and the EV1 were serious competition to the gas companies, they'd pay a lot of money to close them down.
I haven't watched the movie in a while, but I would def suggest checking it out. It was very interesting, to say the least. Between this movie, Smartest Guys In The Room and Food Inc, I really fucking hate big business.

"The Corporation." A very good movie. It will fuel those anti-corporation flames.
It is a history of the corporation as a legal entity. The evolution is amazing and scary. Corporations are looking into patenting DNA, plants, seeds, etc.

[furie]

Explain?
Gm waited until the government forced them to act. Instead of looking to innovate. Now, we look to foreign companies for innovation.
The automakers are bankrupt. Would leading the world into the electric age, or other innovations, saved them.

ah wait, never mind, i mis read your post.

[underdog]

Corporations are looking into patenting DNA, plants, seeds, etc.

Yeah, that already happens. Then they sue farmers into bankruptcy. Monsanto is like that made up evil cartoon conglomerate, only it actually exists.

[Serpico1103]

Yeah, that already happens. Then they sue farmers into bankruptcy. Monsanto is like that made up evil cartoon conglomerate, only it actually exists.

Monsanto is in there. Poisoning our milk. Complacent media corporations.

[Bob Impact]

I don't think it was Exxon, I think it was Chevron, as someone else said. They saw this as a competition, bought it and eliminated it. They made the cost of the batteries skyrocket and then just stopped selling them altogether.

And I would not doubt that GM was paid by Chevron through this deal. If the batteries and the EV1 were serious competition to the gas companies, they'd pay a lot of money to close them down.

I haven't watched the movie in a while, but I would def suggest checking it out. It was very interesting, to say the least. Between this movie, Smartest Guys In The Room and Food Inc, I really fucking hate big business.

I just looked it up, the sale was to Texaco directly before they were acquired by Chevron in 2000, after the EV1 was dead and GM no longer had a viable business case for the battery patent.

[badmonkey]

The program was not killed until 2003. GWB was in office 2001-2009. I am not saying GWB was the cause. I am saying that his administration did not push GM to continue it. They did the opposite, encouraged them to stop it.
GM probably would have stopped any way. Unless, an administration made it a priority.

So you're making the argument that we don't have an American made battery powered car because GWB didn't want competition with oil companies?
Obama Kills Hydrogen Car Funding (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05/obama-hydrogen-cars.php)Buried in news about President Obama's budget was the news that George W. Bush's $1.2 billion plan for hydrogen fuel cells was killed Obama, saving taxpayers $100 million a year. Why?

Military hybrid vehicles could boost safety, mobility (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-02-13-humvee_x.htm) Posted 2/13/2006 10:34 PM Updated 2/13/2006 10:36 PMMarine Col. Clarke Lethin, who oversees requirements for future vehicles at the Marine base in Quantico, Va., said hybrids could help the military achieve increased fuel economy. Other potential military advantages include:

•Near-silent operation. The vehicles can operate on battery alone, at least slowly, when troops don't want engine noise giving away their position.

•A source of electricity. Instead of towing generators that provide electricity for field command posts, the rechargeable batteries in hybrid vehicles could generate that power. Hybrid batteries are recharged while the vehicle is running off its fuel source.

•Acceleration. Army testing last year showed the hybrids were faster than standard Humvees for short bursts of speed.


Now THIS is an interesting timeline read of the history of hybrids from 1894-2008.
Automobile Magazine FEATURES: A History of Hybrid Vehicles December, 2007 By Don Sherman (http://www.automobilemag.com/features/0712_hybrid_history/index.html)

1970: The Clean Air Act renewed interest in hybrid propulsion. Four TRW engineers working under Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (EPA precursor) auspices invented a clever electromechanical transmission for hybrid vehicles.

*snip*

1993: The Clinton-Gore administration created a Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) between the United States Council for Automotive Research (formed in 1992), and a network of universities, national labs, federal agencies, and suppliers. The goals were 80-mpg concept vehicles by 1999 followed by production-feasible prototypes by 2004. No prototypes emerged, though GM's Precept did achieve 90 mpg on diesel fuel.

Toyota's exclusion from PNGV moved chairman Eiji Toyoda to ponder more efficient automobiles. Takeshi Uchiyamada was assigned the chief engineer's job for a project called G21 (global car for the 21st century).

1994: The original goal of a 50-percent efficiency gain was doubled by Toyota's new engineering executive vice president Akihiro Wada who targeted the following year's Tokyo Motor Show as the ideal opportunity for displaying a hybrid concept.

1995: While the Toyota Prius concept was under construction, eighty research engineers brainstormed on a practical hybrid powertrain. The final Toyota Hybrid System (THS) selected in June combined one IC engine, two electric motor-generators, and a planetary gear set in a configuration identical to TRW's 1970 electromechanical transmission. The first THS prototype ran in December.

Apparently GWB doesn't have anywhere near as much to do with it as you think. According to this, Toyota designed their hybrid engines because we pissed them off and they used a model invented in the USA in 1970 to do it.

[Serpico1103]

So you're making the argument that we don't have an American made battery powered car because GWB didn't want competition with oil companies?


More, my guy is right, your guy is wrong.

I said GWB played a minimal part in ending the project. However, a president favorable to renewable energy (not saying Gore would have) could have forced the automakers to innovate against their short-sighted will. The project was on its way out when GWB took over, instead of reviving it, he turned to hydrogen fuel that now seems to have limited use.
GWB played the exact role I said he did. Automakers were being forced to make electric cars. GWB came in and switched to hydrogen cells. Letting automakers abandon the electric car. A real forward looking plan.

[Bob Impact]

More, my guy is right, your guy is wrong.

I said GWB played a minimal part in ending the project. However, a president favorable to renewable energy (not saying Gore would have) could have forced the automakers to innovate against their short-sighted will. The project was on its way out when GWB took over, instead of reviving it, he turned to hydrogen fuel that now seems to have limited use.
GWB played the exact role I said he did. Automakers were being forced to make electric cars. GWB came in and switched to hydrogen cells. Letting automakers abandon the electric car. A real forward looking plan.

The project was on it's way out because "forcing innovation" is what CARB tried to do in the mid 90s which started this ENTIRE issue. "Letting automakers abandon the electric car" is a really telling statement coming from you, you're virulently anti corporation until "your guy" is able to force them to do the work you want them to do. So you hate them until you're allowed to leash them and force them to work for you for free?

[Serpico1103]

The project was on it's way out because "forcing innovation" is what CARB tried to do in the mid 90s which started this ENTIRE issue. "Letting automakers abandon the electric car" is a really telling statement coming from you, you're virulently anti corporation until "your guy" is able to force them to do the work you want them to do. So you hate them until you're allowed to leash them and force them to work for you for free?

Exactly. I would be happy to eliminate the corporate structure. But, while it exists it is the government's obligation to control it. Through incentives to do the right thing, and disincentives to do the wrong thing. The government doesn't hold a gun to your head. It provides incentive. There is incentive to invest in stocks- capital gains tax instead of income tax. Incentive to buy a home- mortgage interest deduction. The government can incentivize innovation.
Oh those poor automakers. They would have willingly put seatbelts in cars, crash standards, airbags, etc.

" WASHINGTON, Oct. 9— The Bush administration went to court today to support the automobile industry's effort to eliminate requirements in California that auto manufacturers sell electric cars.
President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., was the chief lobbyist for General Motors, one of the plaintiffs in the case. Mr. Card was also head of an auto industry trade association when California proposed to require electric vehicles, and has publicly opposed such a requirement. "
State's rights? Where is the "keep the federal government out of the state" crowd on this?

[Bob Impact]

Exactly. I would be happy to eliminate the corporate structure. But, while it exists it is the government's obligation to control it. Through incentives to do the right thing, and disincentives to do the wrong thing. The government doesn't hold a gun to your head. It provides incentive. There is incentive to invest in stocks- capital gains tax instead of income tax. Incentive to buy a home- mortgage interest deduction. The government can incentivize innovation.
Oh those poor automakers. They would have willingly put seatbelts in cars, crash standards, airbags, etc.

" WASHINGTON, Oct. 9— The Bush administration went to court today to support the automobile industry's effort to eliminate requirements in California that auto manufacturers sell electric cars.
President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., was the chief lobbyist for General Motors, one of the plaintiffs in the case. Mr. Card was also head of an auto industry trade association when California proposed to require electric vehicles, and has publicly opposed such a requirement. "
State's rights? Where is the "keep the federal government out of the state" crowd on this?

I won't argue the points you're attempting to make about government incentives because the two of us will never get close to anything resembling agreement. Instead i'll point to the fact that the ZEV case was more forced than incentive. CARB set completely arbitrary requirements for ZEVs, saying if x% of vehicles in that state were not ZEVs by y year the automaker could not sell vehicles in California, because of the nature of the economies of scale as well as the nature of laws drifting from state to state this in essence became a way of forcing work, not offering incentives.

[Serpico1103]

I won't argue the points you're attempting to make about government incentives because the two of us will never get close to anything resembling agreement. Instead i'll point to the fact that the ZEV case was more forced than incentive. CARB set completely arbitrary requirements for ZEVs, saying if x% of vehicles in that state were not ZEVs by y year the automaker could not sell vehicles in California, because of the nature of the economies of scale as well as the nature of laws drifting from state to state this in essence became a way of forcing work, not offering incentives.

Yes. That was a requirement. But, so are many regulations. Should the government merely give food producers incentives to not keep unhealthy elements out of the food supply?

I will not say CARB was perfect. But, like with most things, instead of improving it (giving it a longer timeline, decreasing the ratio of EV required, etc) it was scrapped completely.
AND. The automakers, once the regulatory gun was removed from their temple, they stagnated.
I do prefer things to be done through incentives (whether it is healthy food, better cars, better education, etc), but when that doesn't work real pressure must be exerted.

[Bob Impact]

I will not say CARB was perfect. But, like with most things, instead of improving it (giving it a longer timeline, decreasing the ratio of EV required, etc) it was scrapped completely.
AND. The automakers, once the regulatory gun was removed from their temple, they stagnated.

You don't seem to know any details about the ZEV mandate because what you're claiming should have happened is EXACTLY what happened. The original framework in 1990 mandated 2% of all new cars sold in California by 1998 needed to be ZEVs and 10% by 2003, this ruling was repeatedly lowered over the course of the next decade as it became apparent that it wasn't possible. The only positive behind CARB is that it drove the LEV, SULEV, PZEV, etc.

[Syd]

Obama Kills Hydrogen Car Funding (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05/obama-hydrogen-cars.php)

Hydrogen fuel cells will never be used in mass produced cars. They require transition metals which are extremely rare (stars never really made much of them and even less landed here. Without the car being massively subsidized by BIG GUBBAMINT (t.m.) the MSRPs would have easily been 40, 45k+ for a small econobox.

They're best left being used as emergency power backups since their cost is offset by the reliability and ease of maintenance over a diesel generator.

[Serpico1103]

You don't seem to know any details about the ZEV mandate because what you're claiming should have happened is EXACTLY what happened. The original framework in 1990 mandated 2% of all new cars sold in California by 1998 needed to be ZEVs and 10% by 2003, this ruling was repeatedly lowered over the course of the next decade as it became apparent that it wasn't possible. The only positive behind CARB is that it drove the LEV, SULEV, PZEV, etc.

"* In 1999, ex-Governor Davis appointed Alan Lloyd, a fuel cell advocate and enemy of Battery EVs ("BEV"), to the position of Chair of CARB. CARB gradually weakened and then withdrew the BEV component of the ZEV mandate (it was existing EVs that were killed: the ZEV mandate itself is nominally still in force, but currently "inoperative" so far as actually doing anything)."

Didn't extend the bev mandate(which was forcing the EV-1), it withdrew it.

In summation. Big government- Bad. Big corporations- Worse.

[Bob Impact]

"* In 1999, ex-Governor Davis appointed Alan Lloyd, a fuel cell advocate and enemy of Battery EVs ("BEV"), to the position of Chair of CARB. CARB gradually weakened and then withdrew the BEV component of the ZEV mandate (it was existing EVs that were killed: the ZEV mandate itself is nominally still in force, but currently "inoperative" so far as actually doing anything)."

Didn't extend the bev mandate(which was forcing the EV-1), it withdrew it.

In summation. Big government- Bad. Big corporations- Worse.

The first withdrawl was in 1996 which took away the 1998 requirement, then in 1998 they decided that 6% of the 10% requirement could be PZEVs (with the SULEV, etc steps in between). My point is you acted like the mandate existed until Bush killed it and that purely and simply is not the case, then you fell back on "well they should have extended it/fixed it" which they did.

[Serpico1103]

More, my guy is right, your guy is wrong.

I said GWB played a minimal part in ending the project. However, a president favorable to renewable energy (not saying Gore would have) could have forced the automakers to innovate against their short-sighted will. The project was on its way out when GWB took over, instead of reviving it, he turned to hydrogen fuel that now seems to have limited use.
GWB played the exact role I said he did. Automakers were being forced to make electric cars. GWB came in and switched to hydrogen cells. Letting automakers abandon the electric car. A real forward looking plan.

The first withdrawl was in 1996 which took away the 1998 requirement, then in 1998 they decided that 6% of the 10% requirement could be PZEVs (with the SULEV, etc steps in between). My point is you acted like the mandate existed until Bush killed it and that purely and simply is not the case, then you fell back on "well they should have extended it/fixed it" which they did.

I am trying my best to not make this about GWB.
Fully electric cars should have been pushed. Hybrids and hydrogen cell cars need refueling stations. Keeping big bad corporate hands in your wallet.
I must be mistaken. The US automakers know what they are doing. After all, they didn't lie down and let Japanese imports dominate the market. They didn't almost fall into bankruptcy, requiring daddy government to save them.

[Bob Impact]

I am trying my best to not make this about GWB.
Fully electric cars should have been pushed. Hybrids and hydrogen cell cars need refueling stations. Keeping big bad corporate hands in your wallet.
I must be mistaken. The US automakers know what they are doing. After all, they didn't lie down and let Japanese imports dominate the market. They didn't almost fall into bankruptcy, requiring daddy government to save them.


Maybe you didn't specify GWB but you sure brought him up quite a bit and talked about "favorable" administrations such as Gore, the alternative to Gore was... who?
EDIT: And TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR: GWB was an ABYSMAL president when it came to environmental policy, I'm not defending him what so ever.

First of all, a decade of R&D disagrees with the point that electrics should have been pushed over hybrids, you'll get no argument from me on hydrogen. The EV mandate was an unreachable goal. If you ever want to see what happens when government "forces" corporations take a look at this case.

Secondly It's not as if ONLY GM Ford and Dodge took issue with this, the import manufacturers were involved in the disputes with CARB as well.

I'm not going to respond to the points that you and I both know are straw man arguments, but seriously, Corporations wouldn't make money on EVs? You must live in a state of persistent fear considering you think corporations are terribly evil and at the same time hope that the government will force them to do things for you, implying that you need them to survive.

[Syd]

I'm not going to respond to the points that you and I both know are straw man arguments, but seriously, Corporations wouldn't make money on EVs? You must live in a state of persistent fear considering you think corporations are terribly evil and at the same time hope that the government will force them to do things for you, implying that you need them to survive.

Corporations don't really make money on EVs -- they're terribly expensive with a minimal profit margin. The Prius is almost sold at a loss.

Besides, Government is there to force them to do things for you because the citizen is government and vice versa. If people weren't too obsessed with taxes and other less important things they'd realize what government is for and they could stop obsessing about hypothetical things the founding fathers thought and think more about what they really did believe: that people deserved to be able to protect themselves from harm caused on them by oligarchs and monarchs.

[Bob Impact]

Corporations don't really make money on EVs -- they're terribly expensive with a minimal profit margin. The Prius is almost sold at a loss.


That's why the EV never went anywhere. The point I was making was that no matter what the corporations would be selling you whatever the result of the CARB mandates were.

[Serpico1103]

Maybe you didn't specify GWB but you sure brought him up quite a bit and talked about "favorable" administrations such as Gore, the alternative to Gore was... who?
Gore was the alternative. But, I specifically said that I don't know he would have been better. I said "a favorable administration, which Gore may not have been."

I'm not going to respond to the points that you and I both know are straw man arguments, but seriously, Corporations wouldn't make money on EVs? You must live in a state of persistent fear considering you think corporations are terribly evil and at the same time hope that the government will force them to do things for you, implying that you need them to survive.

Do I live in constant fear that I will be car jacked? No. Do car jackings happen? Yes.
I am not in constant fear of corporations. Their evolution from a powerless single use entity into global conglomerates with more economic power than many countries (but with nothing but profit as a driving force) is cause for concern.
Where does your information come from? Books, TV, movies, magazines, newspapers- a small group of corporations.
Where does your food come from? grocery store, fast food, local restaurants- a small group of corporations.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[Serpico1103]

Corporations don't really make money on EVs -- they're terribly expensive with a minimal profit margin. The Prius is almost sold at a loss.


That is because R&D must be absorbed by the early models. As the technology expands into other lines and hopefully dominates (or takes a large piece) the marketplace the R&D costs are spread thinner increasing the profit per unit.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05/george-will-takes-on-hybrids-prius-truth.php

Apparent lie from George Will.
"[The Prius is] affordable because Toyota sells it at a loss, and it can afford to sell it at a loss because it is selling twice as many gas-guzzling pickup trucks of the sort our president detests. So as an auto executive, he's off to a rocky start."
Possible Truth.
Hybrids Generate $3,100 in Profits
As we noted last week, Toyota and Honda, though both struggling in the recession, are making about ¥300,000 (US$3,100) on each hybrid they sell, a number similar to what they are making on gasoline-only cars, according to Japan's Nikkei. The Nikkei adds that "Toyota appears to have earned gross profits of around ¥100 billion yen (US$1 billion) on its sales of second-generation Prius hybrids last year." And in spite of the recession, pre-orders are rolling in for the third generation, solar-roof-optional, 50-MPG 2010 Prius hybrid.

[Bob Impact]

Do I live in constant fear that I will be car jacked? No. Do car jackings happen? Yes.
I am not in constant fear of corporations. Their evolution from a powerless single use entity into global conglomerates with more economic power than many countries (but with nothing but profit as a driving force) is cause for concern.
Where does your information come from? Books, TV, movies, magazines, newspapers- a small group of corporations.
Where does your food come from? grocery store, fast food, local restaurants- a small group of corporations.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

So let me ask the follow up... What makes the government a better option?

[Serpico1103]

So let me ask the follow up... What makes the government a better option?

Without government there is chaos/anarchy. Without corporations with their legal privileges of today there is 1886.

[sailor]

That is because R&D must be absorbed by the early models. As the technology expands into other lines and hopefully dominates (or takes a large piece) the marketplace the R&D costs are spread thinner increasing the profit per unit.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05/george-will-takes-on-hybrids-prius-truth.php

Apparent lie from George Will.
"[The Prius is] affordable because Toyota sells it at a loss, and it can afford to sell it at a loss because it is selling twice as many gas-guzzling pickup trucks of the sort our president detests. So as an auto executive, he's off to a rocky start."
Possible Truth.
Hybrids Generate $3,100 in Profits
As we noted last week, Toyota and Honda, though both struggling in the recession, are making about ¥300,000 (US$3,100) on each hybrid they sell, a number similar to what they are making on gasoline-only cars, according to Japan's Nikkei. The Nikkei adds that "Toyota appears to have earned gross profits of around ¥100 billion yen (US$1 billion) on its sales of second-generation Prius hybrids last year." And in spite of the recession, pre-orders are rolling in for the third generation, solar-roof-optional, 50-MPG 2010 Prius hybrid.

treehugger: a discovery company

why trust them?

[Syd]

So let me ask the follow up... What makes the government a better option?

For starters, when was the last time you were allowed to democratically elect who ran a corporation?

[Serpico1103]

treehugger: a discovery company

why trust them?

They were quoting Japan's Nikkei. I'll defer to them.
Should a corporations goal, as most shareholders hold shares for a long period, be immediate profits or long term growth?

[sailor]

They were quoting Japan's Nikkei. I'll defer to them.
Should a corporations goal, as most shareholders hold shares for a long period, be immediate profits or long term growth?

and the nikkei is yet another corporation.

it depends on the corporation, but for most you'd have to say long-term growth.

[midwestjeff]

California's been good to me.
I hope it don't fall into the sea.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

California's been good to me.
I hope it don't fall into the sea.

The crushing debt might make it. Gov Moonbeam has his work cut out for him


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/19/EDED1HA111.DTL

[Philly Franko]

Theres the saying "As California goes, so does the nation". The Golden State is in a fiscal tailspin. Tens of billions of dollars in a deficit Hundreds of Billions in debt, IOU's given out, illegal immigration rampant, people moving to other states, it doesnt look too good for CA. I think the Feds will have to bail out CA, looks like a strong possibility.

Newsflash 45 or more states are at or near being bankrupt...and The Federal Gov't is Broke also...just printing money at this point...Just my Opinion...

[Dudeman]

Maybe republicans and other right wing nuts can lower taxes and cut regulations... that will solve CA's problems. Oh wait, that contributed to the problems:

1. tax cuts:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1904938,00.html

What has brought California to such a perilous state? How did its government become so wildly dysfunctional?

And at the root of California's misery lies Proposition 13, the antitax measure that ignited the Reagan Revolution and the conservative era.

Before Prop 13, in the 1950s and '60s, California was a liberal showcase. Governors Earl Warren and Pat Brown responded to the population growth of the postwar boom with a massive program of public infrastructure — the nation's finest public college system, the freeway system and the state aqueduct that carries water from the well-watered north to the parched south.
(http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1904938,00.html)


2. deregulation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis, of 2000 and 2001 was a situation where California had a shortage of electricity.
This demand supply gap was exploited by energy companies, mainly Enron. Enron traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20x its normal peak value.
The financial crisis was possible because of deregulation legislation instituted in 1996 by Governor Pete Wilson. Enron took advantage of this deregulation and was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California's spot markets. The crisis cost $40bn to $45bn.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis)

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Keep Ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room. Like babysitting 3 million needy dependent people and their anchor babies isn't busting the budget.


In LA county alone



http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/anchor-babies-cost-los-angeles-welfare-600-million-last-year

Please secede CA or better yet just slide into the ocean after the big one

[cougarjake13]

Keep Ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room. Like babysitting 3 million needy dependent people and their anchor babies isn't busting the budget.


In LA county alone



http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/anchor-babies-cost-los-angeles-welfare-600-million-last-year

Please secede CA or better yet just slide into the ocean after the big one




see you all in arizona bay

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I would have thought it would be Mississippi or one of those other states in the deep south.


Poorest state in the nation.

Were they one of the states who sent petitions to the WH to secede?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/california-poverty_n_2132920.html

[hanso]

California tumbles into the sea. That'll be the day I go. Back to Annandale Tried to warn you. About Chino and Daddy Gee

[Jujubees2]

California tumbles into the sea. That'll be the day I go. Back to Annandale Tried to warn you. About Chino and Daddy Gee

Well I tried to get to you through the U.S. Mail but we all know that doesn't work either...

[brettmojo]

I would have thought it would be Mississippi or one of those other states in the deep south.


Poorest state in the nation.

Were they one of the states who sent petitions to the WH to secede?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/california-poverty_n_2132920.html

I blame Pluto Nash.