Heck, Mr. President - Why don't we see if we can make things worse...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28846202/wid=18298287

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28846202/wid=18298287
>
> --


How exactly is this making things worse?

Every automaker that wants to sell cars in the 13 states that follow the CA
regulations must operate under the same regulations. No one automaker
is being singled out. So, what is your supposition here - that domestic
automakers
cannot meet this but the Japanese can? Fine, then I'll take back that
automaker
bailout money right now - that's my tax dollars that those automakers are
using, they
damn well better be using that to design cleaner cars.

The fact of the matter is that there's plenty of passenger car designs out
there
that can meet the standard, and there HAVE been in the past - like the GM
EV1.
The fact of the matter is that those designs haven't been profitable because
they
are radically different, and thus do not have the economies of manufacturing
scale
to be able to crank out parts a mile a minute - which would make the parts
cheap.
The fact of the matter is that a technological switch to electric vehicles
will not
happen until the EV is manufactured in the same quantities as the gasoline
vehicle -
thus putting it's purchase price comparable to gas vehicles.

The situation is the same as that with computer storage medium. Today
there's
storage medium - optical - that for the same volume can store 100 times that
of magnetic media. But the computer business isn't switching to it because
mag
media has such a history that it can be manufactured more cheaply - because
the assembly lines already exist, the infrastructure already exists. It
doesen't matter
that the techniques to cram data onto mag media are unbelievably esoteric
while
the techniques to cram data onto optical are basic.

If optical and mag media had to start at the same time from square one,
optical
would win hands down. But we have mag media due to industry inertia.

The auto industry has huge industry inertia. Obviously the CEO's and such
of the
current automakers would rather go with gasoline designs they have now that
are
proven sellers, that they can predict in advance the profit on. So in an
open market
they are going to do what is best for them - not what is best for the
country.

The situation is the same as that of Social Security. Every citizen who has
paid
20-odd years of payroll taxes is expecting to see that money back and will
fight
to the death any attempt to abolish SS - even though it's bankrupting the
US -
because it's in their own self-interest to do it, NOT in the country's
interest. The
country's interest would be to not have SS at all and to have something else
instead
of it. That was what Bush was driving at with his privatization of SS
initative. But
of course that got shot down.

The situation is also the same with digital TV. There is a huge expensive
hump to
get consumers over to transition from analog to digital. That is why the
industry
would never have voluntarily done it, and why the transition had to be
forced by
the federal government. But once we get over that hump in the long run it
will
be cheaper, and much better for the country.

Granted, your still burning fuel to create electricity. But, your doing it
in a
stationary power plant and you can extract every bit of usable heat from the
fuel,
instead of dumping half your fuel energy out the radiator like a car does.
You can
also sequester the CO2 from a power plant by running it into an algae field
which
uses solar energy and the CO2 from the power plant which can then create
fuel.
That isn't practical in a vehicle.

Ted

The key thing that made the American economy so great (or, at least, so
big....) is the fact that it is a large single market.

Setting up internal trade barriers is truly idiotic. When I heard about
this plan a few days ago (yes, even reported in the UK) my first thought was
that it was daft.

The EU is painfully working its way to a true single market by the
harmonisation of, among other things, technical standards. Of course there
is also mutual recognition of (old) national standards to accelerate the
process of free movements of goods, but it would be very foolish to create
an uncoordinated plethora of new standards.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
[...]

> How exactly is this making things worse?
>
> Every automaker that wants to sell cars in the 13 states that follow the
> CA
> regulations must operate under the same regulations. No one automaker
> is being singled out. So, what is your supposition here - that domestic
> automakers
> cannot meet this but the Japanese can? Fine, then I'll take back that
> automaker
> bailout money right now - that's my tax dollars that those automakers are
> using, they
> damn well better be using that to design cleaner cars.
[...]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:34:29 -0000, "Dori A Schmetterling"
> wrote:

>The EU is painfully working its way to a true single market by the
>harmonisation of, among other things, technical standards.
>... but it would be very foolish to create
>an uncoordinated plethora of new standards.

Yes. Much better to agree on a single standard for the acceptable
degree of curvature of a cucumber. )

Brian Priebe wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:34:29 -0000, "Dori A Schmetterling"
> > wrote:
>
>> The EU is painfully working its way to a true single market by the
>> harmonisation of, among other things, technical standards.
>> ... but it would be very foolish to create
>> an uncoordinated plethora of new standards.
>
> Yes. Much better to agree on a single standard for the acceptable
> degree of curvature of a cucumber. )

Hah! I heard the news story a couple of months ago about the small
farmer whose entire harvest of - what was it - avacado's? - was
destroyed because some of them were 2 mm under the minimum required size
for sale for human consumption according to the EU specs.?

Laws like that are ridiculous whether coming from some wannabe
centralized world government or a single state. The problem with
centralized stuff like the EU and the UN is that everything becomes one
size fits all, and there's just too much to be gained by corruption by
otherwise meaningless, counterproductive, and plain damaging to the
human condition laws (similar to communism). It's bad enough in single
countries as we are finding out for the 10,000th time.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

A lot of the stuff you read about the EU is nonsense. British papers are
full of it as they love to bash "Brussels" without actually comprehending
it.

The questions of definitions are tricky, as quality has to be defined. Easy
to mock when not thinking about it.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Brian Priebe wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:34:29 -0000, "Dori A Schmetterling"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The EU is painfully working its way to a true single market by the
>>> harmonisation of, among other things, technical standards. ... but it
>>> would be very foolish to create an uncoordinated plethora of new
>>> standards.
>>
>> Yes. Much better to agree on a single standard for the acceptable
>> degree of curvature of a cucumber. )
>
> Hah! I heard the news story a couple of months ago about the small farmer
> whose entire harvest of - what was it - avacado's? - was destroyed because
> some of them were 2 mm under the minimum required size for sale for human
> consumption according to the EU specs.?
>
> Laws like that are ridiculous whether coming from some wannabe centralized
> world government or a single state. The problem with centralized stuff
> like the EU and the UN is that everything becomes one size fits all, and
> there's just too much to be gained by corruption by otherwise meaningless,
> counterproductive, and plain damaging to the human condition laws (similar
> to communism). It's bad enough in single countries as we are finding out
> for the 10,000th time.
>
> --
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')

I don't accept that an entire harvest of whatever vegetable it was has
to be destroyed (they refused to allow it to be used for anything -
bureaucrats had to make a point). Aren't there at least some starving
people somewhere that could have used them. Besides - if I wanted to
buy some smallish samples of whatever it was, I should have the right to
do so. I find this kind of crap more than grossly absurd.

Not to worry, Dori. It is clear that the U.S. is now on an accelerated
schedule to the same fate as Europe.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')


Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> A lot of the stuff you read about the EU is nonsense. British papers are
> full of it as they love to bash "Brussels" without actually comprehending
> it.
>
> The questions of definitions are tricky, as quality has to be defined. Easy
> to mock when not thinking about it.
>
> DAS
>
> To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Brian Priebe wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:34:29 -0000, "Dori A Schmetterling"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The EU is painfully working its way to a true single market by the
>>>> harmonisation of, among other things, technical standards. ... but it
>>>> would be very foolish to create an uncoordinated plethora of new
>>>> standards.
>>> Yes. Much better to agree on a single standard for the acceptable
>>> degree of curvature of a cucumber. )
>> Hah! I heard the news story a couple of months ago about the small farmer
>> whose entire harvest of - what was it - avacado's? - was destroyed because
>> some of them were 2 mm under the minimum required size for sale for human
>> consumption according to the EU specs.?
>>
>> Laws like that are ridiculous whether coming from some wannabe centralized
>> world government or a single state. The problem with centralized stuff
>> like the EU and the UN is that everything becomes one size fits all, and
>> there's just too much to be gained by corruption by otherwise meaningless,
>> counterproductive, and plain damaging to the human condition laws (similar
>> to communism). It's bad enough in single countries as we are finding out
>> for the 10,000th time.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Putney
>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
>> with the letter 'x')
>
>

Nothing to stop the manufacturers from building to the highest spec......


"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> The key thing that made the American economy so great (or, at least, so
> big....) is the fact that it is a large single market.
>
> Setting up internal trade barriers is truly idiotic. When I heard about
> this plan a few days ago (yes, even reported in the UK) my first thought
> was that it was daft.
>
> The EU is painfully working its way to a true single market by the
> harmonisation of, among other things, technical standards. Of course
> there is also mutual recognition of (old) national standards to accelerate
> the process of free movements of goods, but it would be very foolish to
> create an uncoordinated plethora of new standards.
>
> DAS
>
> To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
> ...
> [...]
>
>> How exactly is this making things worse?
>>
>> Every automaker that wants to sell cars in the 13 states that follow the
>> CA
>> regulations must operate under the same regulations. No one automaker
>> is being singled out. So, what is your supposition here - that domestic
>> automakers
>> cannot meet this but the Japanese can? Fine, then I'll take back that
>> automaker
>> bailout money right now - that's my tax dollars that those automakers are
>> using, they
>> damn well better be using that to design cleaner cars.
> [...]
>
>

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
>I don't accept that an entire harvest of whatever vegetable it was has to
>be destroyed (they refused to allow it to be used for anything -
>bureaucrats had to make a point). Aren't there at least some starving
>people somewhere that could have used them. Besides - if I wanted to buy
>some smallish samples of whatever it was, I should have the right to do so.
>I find this kind of crap more than grossly absurd.
>

I'd assume they could have used it as animal feed - or does the EU have
specs on that too?

> Not to worry, Dori. It is clear that the U.S. is now on an accelerated
> schedule to the same fate as Europe.
>

Dori, Bill doesen't have any excuse for this and should know better, but you
are perhaps unaware that ever since the 60's that CA has had differing
emissions
requirements for automobiles than the rest of the United States. In short,
if you
wanted to sell cars in the US you either built your entire model to be
California
-compliant, or you did what most manufacturers did, and made a special CA
version of your model for sale in CA.

So the idea that the American economy is a large single market has never
been
true for automobiles. And the fact is that although a lot of car guys
sneered at
GM for making exactly the same vehicle and badging some of them Chevy and
some Buick, selling the different badges in different geographical markets,
this
is a strategy that worked - and it is further evidence that the American
market
isn't homogeneous.

What is going on now in the US is that as more and more states adopt the
CA emissions requirements, automakers will be forced to eventually adopt
those as the standard for ALL models sold in ALL states, even if that state
had
not adopted the standard.

Now, as for Bill, for shame, shame!!!! Let me remind you Bill that it is
YOUR
political party - the Republicans - who are die-hard states-rights
activists. Weak
and small central government, remember? Well, I guess it's just more
hypocracy -
your all for states rights when a state wants to turn the clock backwards on
abortion, but when a state wants to set tigher emissions standards, boy
watch
how quick you and your ilk will run crying to the feds to override that
state.
That is what your old bud the Chimp did when he was President after all -
override the CA States Rights on this issue. Accellerated schedule to the
same
fate as Europe, my ass!

Ted

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I don't accept that an entire harvest of whatever vegetable it was has to
>> be destroyed (they refused to allow it to be used for anything -
>> bureaucrats had to make a point). Aren't there at least some starving
>> people somewhere that could have used them. Besides - if I wanted to buy
>> some smallish samples of whatever it was, I should have the right to do so.
>> I find this kind of crap more than grossly absurd.
>>
>
> I'd assume they could have used it as animal feed - or does the EU have
> specs on that too?

You missed where I said "(they refused to allow it to be used for
anything - bureaucrats had to make a point)". The news story I heard
specifically mentioned that they would not allow it to be diverted even
to animal feed. Not that it couldn't have from a practical point. The
point of that was that they had to send the message that they were in
charge, not that any real good would come of that spec. That's what
bureaucrats do - operate to exercise their power for the sake of that
power. Acting for the common good is not in the equation.

>> Not to worry, Dori. It is clear that the U.S. is now on an accelerated
>> schedule to the same fate as Europe.
>>
>
> Dori, Bill doesen't have any excuse for this and should know better, but you
> are perhaps unaware that ever since the 60's that CA has had differing
> emissions
> requirements for automobiles than the rest of the United States. In short,
> if you
> wanted to sell cars in the US you either built your entire model to be
> California
> -compliant, or you did what most manufacturers did, and made a special CA
> version of your model for sale in CA.

And Californians paid for that in higher costs - like they do with
everything.

My philosophy would be that if California elected legislators that
exacted their own standards on cars that California then deserved what
it got in the form of paying more for their cars. Pure and simple.
Californian's have a way of shooting themselves in their collective foot
and then blaming everyone else.

There are too many examples of that to list them all, but I remember I
think it was in the early or mid 90's, California passed some ridiculous
restrictions on auto insurance companies - things that would make
staying in business impossible.

All of the insurance companies immediately pulled their business out of
California. Then California bitched about that. Imagine that - people
refusing to be forced to do business in a state where it would be
impossible to not go broke - oh those ******* insurance companies!!

And the answer to your future response to that is: Then let some wise
businessman start a new insurance company to operate in California under
those regs. There's a reason that no businessman - wise or otherwise
would have done so.

> So the idea that the American economy is a large single market has never
> been
> true for automobiles. And the fact is that although a lot of car guys
> sneered at
> GM for making exactly the same vehicle and badging some of them Chevy and
> some Buick, selling the different badges in different geographical markets,
> this
> is a strategy that worked - and it is further evidence that the American
> market
> isn't homogeneous.
>
> What is going on now in the US is that as more and more states adopt the
> CA emissions requirements, automakers will be forced to eventually adopt
> those as the standard for ALL models sold in ALL states, even if that state
> had not adopted the standard.

You're suggesting that those states *require* vehicles be made special
to looser standards, and therefore their people pay *more* for specially
built cars? Why would they do that. But they are *free* (key word) to
do that if they so desired as California was free to do so for what it
wanted, and its people ended up paying for it in the price of things in
many areas.

Yeah - let's make it illegal for people to clear brush from around their
houses to protect mother earth - oh I'm sorry - Mother Earth, and then
ask for sympathy and aid from everyone else when their houses burn down
because the fires spread like - umm - wildfire.

But - you are right - the rest of the country is becoming like
California and Europe. Like Dr. Phil would say "How's that working for
ya? What were you thinking!?" Only then it will be too late.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')