[Al_U_Card]

Imagine a time before cars. Imagine there was no petroleum. Electric cars would have been a viable option (versus coal-fired as they would be messy all round) and less of a problem for the environment (of course, the Americans would have built coal-fired plants to generate the electricity but...)

Had the "central government" in California not enacted such "onerous" legislation as they did in the last half of the previous century, the air in LA would be unbreathable. Did the car makers abandon that lucrative market?

C'mon Mike, specious bandying about of tired old tirades about commies etc.....pretty pathetic. We are talking new ideas and new approaches. The past is a failure as far as the future is concerned. Gotta get with the times.

[blackshoe]

Al_U_Card, on Dec 22 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

Electric cars would have been a viable option

In "the time before cars"? Not a chance.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on Dec 22 2008, 10:50 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Dec 22 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

Electric cars would have been a viable option

In "the time before cars"? Not a chance.

Well, the technology looked promising before the advent of the gas and diesel engines.

http://en.wikipedia....ic_cars#History

[kenberg]

My last car purchase was in 2001, my first in 1954. Perhaps surprisingly, the basis for my choice hasn't changed all that much:

A. I have to be able to pay for it. Cash. I don't buy on credit.
B. It should be dependable.
C. It should not cost a lot for day to day driving.


In 1954, A and then C were dominant since I had little cash and I enjoyed taking engines apart. In 2001, B played a heavy role as well. Note that social responsibility did not make the top three concerns, nor did support for American industry. Both were taken into consideration, but the list I give was dominant.

In 2001 there were hybrids up for sale. I considered them. They were relatively new and I decided against getting one. Let someone else discover the bugs.


In seeing how the automotive industry came to its current bad health, I feel one thing more should be said. In 1990, I was in need of a car. I checked Consumer's Reports for data. Hondas looked good, the Taurus looked not horrible. I visited a Honda dealer and found what my options were. I also visited a Ford dealer near where I worked to check out the Taurus. I only had an hour or so, but I needed a car pronto and I had my checkbook in my pocket. The salesman went through his routine of running back to the manager to get me an even better deal and then the manager came out and spent a good part of the hour shoving papers in front of me that purported to show that at the price he was offering to sell he would be losing money on the sale. It was an old joke: "We sell so low we lose money on every sale" ; "How can you do that and stay in business?"; "Volume!". Time ran out, I had to get back to work, I bought a Honda. I don't know if salesmen in American car salesrooms are still acting like idiots but if they are it would be good if they would stop.

Anyway, I favor trying to save the car industry but I suggest very strong supervision over any money that we give or lend to them. There is very good reason not to trust those guys.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Dec 22 2008, 07:33 AM, said:

I think they should just let them go bust. I can't believe Americans will stop buying cars, so someone else will take over the plants and do something with them. So most of the workers will keep in business, I think. Too bad that the shareholders lose their money but the government has bigger problems to think about (and to spend its non-existing money on).

i'm with you, helene... the GM CEO said something like "if we go down we take america with us" or something like that... i doubt it

Al_U_Card, on Dec 22 2008, 03:17 PM, said:

Imagine a time before cars.  Imagine there was no petroleum.  Electric cars would have been a viable option (versus coal-fired as they would be messy all round) and less of a problem for the environment (of course, the Americans would have built coal-fired plants to generate the electricity but...)

Had the "central government" in California not enacted such "onerous" legislation as they did in the last half of the previous century, the air in LA would be unbreathable.  Did the car makers abandon that lucrative market? 

C'mon Mike, specious bandying about of tired old tirades about commies etc.....pretty pathetic.  We are talking new ideas and new approaches. The past is a failure as far as the future is concerned. Gotta get with the times.

his point is still valid... if the car you described could be built and sold for a profit, someone would do it... if the gov't mandates such a car and the companies refuse, then what?

[Al_U_Card]

My recollection of the threatening then the enactment of the stringent emission controls (in California at first) is that it was met with much wailing and tearing of hair by the big 3. It wasn't feasible, they would go bankrupt, the public wouldn't pay for it, etc.

Time told a different story. Where there is a public (political) will, there is an economic (profitable) way. The "free" market knows how to seek its own level and we must not let it sink to the lowest one available.

[Gerben42]

Quote

My last car purchase was in 2001, my first in 1954. Perhaps surprisingly, the basis for my choice hasn't changed all that much:

A. I have to be able to pay for it. Cash. I don't buy on credit.

Aha! Another bad citizen

[blackshoe]

Would that we had more such "bad citizens".

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on Dec 23 2008, 07:47 AM, said:

My recollection of the threatening then the enactment of the stringent emission controls (in California at first) is that it was met with much wailing and tearing of hair by the big 3. It wasn't feasible, they would go bankrupt, the public wouldn't pay for it, etc.

Time told a different story. Where there is a public (political) will, there is an economic (profitable) way.  The "free" market knows how to seek its own level and we must not let it sink to the lowest one available.

keep in mind...they(car companies) did go bankrupt and need a taxpayer bailout...and in fact CAlif is bankrupt....and many people..me...left california.

In fact the free capital markets did not RACE to give them money.


but no matter........if you put your own money in this car venture... no problem..if not.....silly....

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Dec 23 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

but no matter........if you put your own money in this car venture... no problem..if not.....silly....

We already have, 17 billion of your tax dollars and 3.4 billion of ours....now, how many shares will we receive???

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Dec 23 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Dec 23 2008, 07:47 AM, said:

My recollection of the threatening then the enactment of the stringent emission controls (in California at first) is that it was met with much wailing and tearing of hair by the big 3. It wasn't feasible, they would go bankrupt, the public wouldn't pay for it, etc.

Time told a different story. Where there is a public (political) will, there is an economic (profitable) way.  The "free" market knows how to seek its own level and we must not let it sink to the lowest one available.

keep in mind...they(car companies) did go bankrupt and need a taxpayer bailout...and in fact CAlif is bankrupt....and many people..me...left california.

In fact the free capital markets did not RACE to give them money.


but no matter........if you put your own money in this car venture... no problem..if not.....silly....

Let me chime in with you guys. In my view, extremism in any form is wrong. Sorry, Chicago School.

Extreme laissez-faire has its own set of problems that Friedman, Strauss, and Ayn Rand ignored.

Extremism the other way is no better though.