Let GM go Bankrupt

@okie,

It is not a car from the 1970s or 1980s, is it?

@plainoldme,

My vehicles are 2000 or newer. Why does it matter to you? And if it makes any difference, I had a couple cars made in the 80's that were very fuel efficient and a couple of the best cars I've owned.

1 Reply

@okie,

BEcause when the car was manufactured is the key to its fuel consumption.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Not necessarily. My 87 car, same make and model as my 2001, had better MPG. It was the reason I bought the 2001, but frankly I have been mildly disappointed with the economy of my 2001, although it is close to what the 87 did. The interesting thing is the engine is the same basic engine, size and all.

1 Reply

@okie,

I see the loyal opposition has thumbed down my post, which is nothing more than absolute fact and indisputable fact about something as simple as fuel economy of a couple of cars that I have owned. Strange attitude to thumbs down facts about that, I can understand difference in opinion in regard to philosophy, but facts about a couple of cars can hardly be viewed as a liberal or conservative issue, so very weird indeed. But the liberal mind is hard to figure.

1 Reply

@okie,

You know okie, I used to go through and thumb things back up unless the were obscene or personal insults. Now, I just let them go. If people insist on showing the level of their mentality, they are free to do so.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

You know okie, I used to go through and thumb things back up unless the were obscene or personal insults. Now, I just let them go. If people insist on showing the level of their mentality, they are free to do so.

I guess you are right. I apologize if I am wrong, but I suspect it was pom that did the thumbs down. She could have simply asked for more details, and I would have given it. I had an 87 Taurus that would do 20 to 25 in town and easily 32 to 33 on the highway, maybe 37 sometimes, or even more, depending on the wind and all of that. So a few years ago, when trading cars again, I bought a used 2001 Taurus, same engine, figuring the mpg would roughly do the same, but not so, it does maybe high teens to low 20's in town, and high 20's to maybe 30 to 32 on the highway. This is not a huge difference, but I think it is due to the car being slightly heavier than the previous model, perhaps due in part to more safety stuff like airbags and all of that, I am not real sure of all of the reasons. I do know my driving habits are the same, so there is something different with the way the cars have been built.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect pom has this theory that the government mandated mpg standards are totally responsible for any fuel efficiencies by cars, and that anything an auto manufacturer does is totally irrelevant, and so the information I gave her somehow did not fit her preconceived notions about that? And so she thought I was disagreeing with her notions, so instead of being interested in what I had to say, she thumbs me down. I can't be sure of her thinking process, I am only guessing here, but it just seemed sort of strange to thumbs down a simple obersvation of fact, but maybe pom sees everything through the prism of liberal vs conservative, government is good vs private business is bad, and if an auto company did anything without government making them do it, it has to be something she could never agree with, so thumbs down it goes.
Again, these are only guesses about pom based upon my limited exposure to her opinions here, but I have not been able to figure out her rather bizarre brand of reasoning.

0 Replies

Yes, okie, pretty much anything that American car manufacturers have done with respect to mileage or safety has been done because of government mandates. American car manufacturers have bitched and whined for decades that they can't possibly meet those standards (while Japanese car manufacturers, who have had to work with much stricter foreign standards, quietly went out and built cars that exceeded American standards). That's why cars have much lower coefficients of drag, recessed door handeles, underbody shrouding, recessed door handles, kammbacks, EFI, much improved engine technologies, and a whole host of safety features (which they bitched about for years because it would "cost so much no one would buy their cars" until they realized people were buying their cars BECAUSE OF THOSE SAFETY FEATURES THE COMPANIES BITCHED ABOUT.). Most of the progress made in American cars over thelast two decades has been as a result of having to meet national standards. Left to themselves, they'd have been trying to get us all to drive Hummers.

And they were your cars, so you may be right about the mileage you got, but I wonder if you're not remembering thru rose-colored glasses, since the mileage you say you got is WAY above any of the 87 Taurus mileage ratings, and pretty much all the mileage ratings from that period, because of the way they were measured, were a good deal higher than people every actually got on the road. The closest anything comes to your claimed mileage was a 4 cylinder manual model, and you don't strike me as a 4 cylinder manual guy, and even that was 1o-20% below your claims (and even then those cars already were the product of close to twenty years of various federal-standard-meeting work).

1 Reply

And, okie, you pretty much look at everything thru the other side of the prism you claim pom uses--conservative versus liberal, government bad business good, business does everything good and everything government wants them to do is bad. Your biases shows thru everything you write. Objectivity is not thy name.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

And they were your cars, so you may be right about the mileage you got, but I wonder if you're not remembering thru rose-colored glasses, since the mileage you say you got is WAY above any of the 87 Taurus mileage ratings, and pretty much all the mileage ratings from that period, because of the way they were measured, were a good deal higher than people every actually got on the road. The closest anything comes to your claimed mileage was a 4 cylinder manual model, and you don't strike me as a 4 cylinder manual guy, and even that was 1o-20% below your claims (and even then those cars already were the product of close to twenty years of various federal-standard-meeting work).

My car was a V-6, I am pretty sure a 3.0 L, which is identical to the engine in my current car. I have no clue what the mileage ratings were for the 87 or even for the 2001, all I can tell you is what mpg that I got for the 87 and now for the 2001, which to my way of thinking is more realistic than some government rating. I have never found those to be very accurate, at least not more than within 3 or 4 mpg. I can also tell you that I have kept a logbook with every fillup, so I know what my vehicles are doing, I am not throwing out some worthless number that every Tom, Dick, and Harry may habitually claim about their cars.

And MJ, I feel sorry for you if you believe every great innovation in automobiles was accomplished by some government mandate. What hogwash!

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

And, okie, you pretty much look at everything thru the other side of the prism you claim pom uses--conservative versus liberal, government bad business good, business does everything good and everything government wants them to do is bad. Your biases shows thru everything you write. Objectivity is not thy name.

I would like to specifically address this post. You know, MJ, you are not far from what I think, I do think conservative is better than liberal and I also believe business and free markets are inherently more healthy and more progressive than governments. I believe I am on very sound footing with this belief, because I agree with history and the founding fathers of this country. The founding fathers were in fact very suspicious and untrusting of government, and in fact that is why they wrote the constitution and the Bill of Rights as they did, alot of it to protect us from government. Unfortunately, the modern liberal movement has completely forgotten this simple fact, as has most liberals on this forum.

Business and free markets give people liberty and places trust in people's ability to make their own best decisions, while government takes liberties away from people and forces its judgement down peoples throats.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

And MJ, I feel sorry for you if you believe every great innovation in automobiles was accomplished by some government mandate. What hogwash!

Every great innovation in automobiles wasn't accomplished by government mandate, but a huge number of safety and efficiency ones were.

Just as an example, Catalytic Converters. Invented by a French guy, refined by a private corporation in America, they weren't installed in cars out of the goodness of the auto companies' hearts, but due to tighter EPA standards on auto exhaust. So while a private company invented the technology, it was only put in place due to gov't regulations.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclops, to clarify, if I were in politics and had to vote on this stuff in Congress, I would probably not advocate absolutely no regulation at all, but I think I would be on the side of some less regulation, because I think we have over-regulated to some extent. So for me, its a matter of how much is reasonable and prudent.

And I think there may be other ways to accomplish some of the goals we have. Not that I am a fan of using the income tax breaks to a ridiculous extent, but instead of mandating mpg standards, perhaps we could instead give tax breaks to people that buy cars that meet certain standards? This would still leave the decision in the hands of the consumer, who knows best what their particular personal need for a vehicle is, not the government. But if we do that, we need to have some consistency and longevity to the income tax code, instead of baiting and switching as it seems to happen so often.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cyclops, to clarify, if I were in politics and had to vote on this stuff in Congress, I would probably not advocate absolutely no regulation at all, but I think I would be on the side of some less regulation, because I think we have over-regulated to some extent. So for me, its a matter of how much is reasonable and prudent.

And I think there may be other ways to accomplish some of the goals we have. Not that I am a fan of using the income tax breaks to a ridiculous extent, but instead of mandating mpg standards, perhaps we could instead give tax breaks to people that buy cars that meet certain standards? This would still leave the decision in the hands of the consumer, who knows best what their particular personal need for a vehicle is, not the government. But if we do that, we need to have some consistency and longevity to the income tax code, instead of baiting and switching as it seems to happen so often.

Why not just mandate MPGs? Then everyone benefits, and it certainly isn't hard for the car companies to produce these vehicles - they have all done so at every time we've asked them to do so.

The reason you can't leave it up to private consumers, is that the damage done by pollution and bad cars and engines hurts everyone. If it only hurt those people, I would understand. When it comes to questions of pollution, I don't really care what the perceived needs of the consumer are.

Besides - we're all going to be driving electric cars soon enough as it is, and these questions will be arbitrary. And we should welcome this, because the all-electric engine is a significant improvement over the highly inefficient combustion engine.

In what area do you think we are over-regulated?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why not just mandate MPGs? Then everyone benefits, and it certainly isn't hard for the car companies to produce these vehicles - they have all done so at every time we've asked them to do so.

Because the consumer is better able to judge his or her own needs according to their driving habits and use for a vehicle. For example, a construction guy may need a truck with more power that will haul and tow the stuff he needs for his work, and if the manufacturer is saddled with an absolute standard, the manufacturer may not be able to offer the type of vehicle best suited for that consumer. Same principle applies to families that may live very close to work or play, and they desire a large vehicle that may get less mpg. So it makes infinitely more sense to let the consumer make that decision, and the manufacturer will respond to the needs of the consumer rather than obeying some heavy handed regulation. If you make a regulation one size fits all, it creates problems because one size does not fit all. Let the consumer make those decisions. After all, driving a car 5 miles per day at 10 mpg is more efficient than driving a car 20 miles per day at 30 mpg.

Quote:

The reason you can't leave it up to private consumers, is that the damage done by pollution and bad cars and engines hurts everyone. If it only hurt those people, I would understand. When it comes to questions of pollution, I don't really care what the perceived needs of the consumer are.

I just explained to you why you can leave it to private consumers. In America, the consumer should make the decisions. Incentives will drive the consumer in the right direction, starting with their own pocketbook, and if we can also provide some incentives through the tax code, I would also consider that.

Quote:

Besides - we're all going to be driving electric cars soon enough as it is, and these questions will be arbitrary. And we should welcome this, because the all-electric engine is a significant improvement over the highly inefficient combustion engine.

Fine, I have no objection to electric, given the right electric car and the ability to recharge. I am interested in buying electric at some point myself.

Quote:

In what area do you think we are over-regulated?

Cycloptichorn

I can't answer that without studying the situation a bit more, but I know that I just have this gut view of the situation most of the time. It is the nature of government to over-regulate anything it becomes involved in. If in a position to make those decisions, I would need to study and review all of the existing regulations, and I am sure I would come up with proposing a drastic trim down of the regs.

Bottom line, I just happen to believe incentives work better than iron fisted rules. Raising children would teach you that, cyclops. And the free market itself is one of the best incentives for people to start with. One size does not fit all, and who is best suited to purchase the things that best fit their needs and is most efficient for them than the consumer? This is the American Way, and it has proven itself successful beyond anhones imagination.

3 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

For example, a construction guy may need a truck with more power that will haul and tow the stuff he needs for his work, and if the manufacturer is saddled with an absolute standard, the manufacturer may not be able to offer the type of vehicle best suited for that consumer.

But, modern trucks not only haul more weight, have more torque and power then older ones, more stability and better safety features - they ALSO get better gas mileage. Reality doesn't bear out the scenario you are envisioning. It has been our real-world experience that the higher EPA restrictions on exhaust have lead to better performing and more efficient vehicles.

Quote:

Same principle applies to families that may live very close to work or play, and they desire a large vehicle that may get less mpg.

Even larger vehicles are more efficient these days. This doesn't really relate to the discussion, because that same family can get a fuel-efficient large vehicle. It won't be as efficient as a small car, but nobody is asking it to be - just more efficient then the old models of large vehicles.

Quote:

In America, the consumer should make the decisions.

When it comes to pollution? No, they shouldn't, because individuals cannot be trusted to make decisions which are beneficial to others, and the pollution from their cars affects all of us.

Where exactly did you get this idea that American consumers are trustworthy? You think about half the country are idiots for supporting Obama and the Dems. At the same time, you trust them to make smart decisions?

Quote:

Fine, I have no objection to electric, given the right electric car and the ability to recharge. I am interested in buying electric at some point myself.

We need some increases in battery storage technology, fortunately those are coming quickly now. But electric engines are great for people who don't want to be dependent on someone else to get around - you can charge them using whatever power source you like. It's a win-win.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Where exactly did you get this idea that American consumers are trustworthy? You think about half the country are idiots for supporting Obama and the Dems. At the same time, you trust them to make smart decisions?
Cycloptichorn

Good point, cyclops!!!! I may have to rethink this entire argument.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Where exactly did you get this idea that American consumers are trustworthy? You think about half the country are idiots for supporting Obama and the Dems. At the same time, you trust them to make smart decisions?
Cycloptichorn

Good point, cyclops!!!! I may have to rethink this entire argument.

Even if you were joking here, you can see that regulations have their place.

Another example, regulations such as Tire strength and durability. These limit consumer choices b/c you can't choose shitty tires and save money, even if you think that's all you need. But it saves lives and keeps some jackass kid from sliding into your family's minivan at high speed in a rainstorm.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

You were rather angry at me for criticizing your syntax and logic and you accused me of voting your comments down. You did ask to have me point out where you failed to represent your thoughts well.

Interestingly, I suspected you of being among those who vote my comments down, although I did not accuse you.

I have to admit to not reading all of your commentary. I teach developmental English. Students entering community colleges are tested for placement in math and English classes. My students do not test high enough to place into college level English classes. Students who are placed in intermediate writing write as you do. Frankly, life is not a busman's holiday. I read your sort of writing for a living! I generally tire of your posts before I finish because the writing and the logic are weak.

Yes, I suspect you will defend yourself by saying that you write in a hurry. We all do. We have a lot of life to support and wade through. We all make mistakes. I do. Part of the reason why we make mistakes is due to the fact that we dictate silently to ourselves which causes us to misspell. I am convinced that is why people use an apostrophe S rather than the simple plural.

I am going to comment on the above sentence. First, let me commend you for using the verb "to be" in the proper tense: the present unreal conditional. However, you later say, "I would probably not advocate absolutely no regulation at all . . ." Did you mean 'advocate' or do you mean 'support' or 'approve?" And, don't you find that structure awkward? How about, "If I were in Congress, I doubt that I would support a system in which there is no regulation"?

You need a period after regulation or a semi-colon because your entire sentence is a run-on, the sort of thing that lands students in developmental writing.

You, however, did not place a period there and continued: " . . . but I think I would be on the side of some less regulation . . . Why not: " I think I would support some regulation, but it would be looser and less stringent than our current system." or "I am certain I would not support the removal of all regulation although I would like to see our current laws relaxed."

You can go on and on and cast this same sentence fragment into several more correct, easier to read and more logical forms. I do this with my students all the time. We work out sentences on the board and they begin to see that their messages can be delivered more accurately and more interestingly.

Finally,your run-on sentence ends with " . . . because I think we have over-regulated to some extent." Really? Is that like being a little pregnant?

Once we get your syntax in order, perhaps, we can work on your philosophy and your knowledge of history!

2 Replies

@okie,

I think the consumer is blinded by advertising which is often based on half-truths and faulty logic.

Okie, why should we trust you to make any decisions when you think Hitler was a leftist?

Consider how many people think they have no responsibility for the environment.

And, no, people will not be driven "in the right direction" by their pocketbooks. They will do what Americans do: borrow!

1 Reply

Let GM go Bankrupt

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know