Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
Yes... if we can convince our own carmakers to actually make sensible cars, and not continue to build SUVs (they actually wonder why the SUVs don't sell when gas prices go up!).
An example: Mitsubishi is selling the all-electric i MiEV in Japan, is about to introduce it to the European market under the Peugeot and Citroen marquees, and it will outrun and outlast a Chevy Volt hands-down for less money... and yet, American automakers don't have the sense to go to Mitsubishi and say, "Sell us a license... we want to start building that car here." They don't have the sense to just buy an i MiEV and reverse-engineer it.
Some old dogs just can't be taught new tricks, and when they start to suffer, sometimes they have to be put down. |
Sure you can convince US automakers to do so. Just stop buying their cars, and let them go bankrupt. Although, sadly, that doesn't seem like a workable example, since they already are bankrupt, and are even getting bailed out. Why oh why did they have to survive until now? They'd been doing badly for years now.. And now they're probably going to be saved because you can't afford the added unemployment. sigh.
Honestly, I can perhaps understand allowing Ford another chance, as they're at least marginally investing in better mpg (here), but GM? Let them die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilotbob
@steve Bigger cars are already taxed more due to the increased wear and tear on infrastructure.
BOb
|
In every state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
Sorry, I've heard endless tales of catastrophy "if we didn't do something" (usually couched as some version of give up your freedom/lifestyle/future for somebody else's fears). Well, we "didn't do something" over and over and the world didn't come to an end. It just got more affluent. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying catastrophy now. Maybe the wolf is really coming, but I'm not even certain about that. And certainly not going to give up my lifestyle for other people's fears.
|
NOFI, but are you saying that the post-9/11 changes haven't been an assault on your personal rights/lifestyle? Or don't those changes count because you're not usually confronted with the effects (all the databases that track what you're doing, and that will store records of any travelling outside the USA for at least a decade? Or are terror threats somehow more real than global warming threats? Even if terror threats are more tangible (which is hard to argue for
or against because no additional attacks happened that were unambiguously prevented because of the constant fearmongering), they sure cost you a heck of a lot by way of taxation. Only G.W. said you didn't have to pay them yet, as war costs are just as easily put on a credit card as personal expenditures.