Auto Industry and Unfair Foreign Government Practices

[Danke]

I have been in favor of workers organizing but not forcing folks to join unions. When corporatism goes the way of the dinosaurs I'll get back with you on the need for unions.

+1

We don't have a free market, until then...

 

[Jace]

...

 

[acptulsa]

basically the report says, the lighter (newer) your car the more likely you are to die in a crash

...and has no data at all about how much less likely you are to get into a crash.

 

[raystone]

When corporatism goes the way of the dinosaurs...

What are you saying, you are against business and profits ?

The only folks our government cares to assist are the banksters and its crap....

You want MORE government intervention ? In this case, for car companies ?

 

[noxagol]

NHTSA report
"Vehicle Weight, Fatality Risk and Crash Compatibility of Model Year 1991-99 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks"
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809662.pdf

basically the report says, the lighter (newer) your car the more likely you are to die in a crash

Says the government report, the same government that was promoting buying huge, heavy vehicles.

 

[moostraks]

What are you saying, you are against business and profits ?




You want MORE government intervention ? In this case, for car companies ?

The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power"

--Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Fascist Dictator of Italy


I am against cut-throat business practices with a dog eat dog mentality. Our society has no morals and this is indicative of current businesses practices. In reality, it is illogical as a business gets what it pays for in labor costs; but most businesses in seeking the highest profits fail to factor that as they only see short term. (Speaking not regarding small mom and pop types but larger operations)

Our government is run by power brokers for the largest corporations. Government no longer considers the needs of its constituents, but rather panders to tptb in the shadows behind the largest global corporations. This was well evident when the first bailout was shoved through under threat of the economic destruction that has ensued, irregardless of the raping we got last fall and what they continue to extort from us.

No, my statement clearly misinterpreted by you, was that once again the government is pandering to those globalists that have mucked up our system and do not care about the majority of our society as we are "useless feeders". The government is supposed to be employed by us, but that is not the case. The laws and measures that are in place solely benefit a small number of eaters at the top.

 

[mczerone]

The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power"

--Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Fascist Dictator of Italy


I am against cut-throat business practices with a dog eat dog mentality. Our society has no morals and this is indicative of current businesses practices. In reality, it is illogical as a business gets what it pays for in labor costs; but most businesses in seeking the highest profits fail to factor that as they only see short term. (Speaking not regarding small mom and pop types but larger operations)

Our government is run by power brokers for the largest corporations. Government no longer considers the needs of its constituents, but rather panders to tptb in the shadows behind the largest global corporations. This was well evident when the first bailout was shoved through under threat of the economic destruction that has ensued, irregardless of the raping we got last fall and what they continue to extort from us.

No, my statement clearly misinterpreted by you, was that once again the government is pandering to those globalists that have mucked up our system and do not care about the majority of our society as we are "useless feeders". The government is supposed to be employed by us, but that is not the case. The laws and measures that are in place solely benefit a small number of eaters at the top.

The problem is that there is an agency called government that the rich and powerful can use to excuse their actions in the minds of the people. Not that there are rich and powerful people.

Dog Eat Dog competition is what fuels production and innovation, and as long as there is no theft or fraud, there is no excuse for trying to limit this environment. Because it is obvious that there is a temptation on the part of some to steal or lie, we must acknowledge the right to protect ourselves through security and retribution for a proven crime.

The government isn't pandering to the people with wealth - the government is individuals with wealth, those who are morally okay with theft and force. The quote from Mussolini shows that the problems can't be blamed on the business interests, but on allowing business interests and "rights protecting" interests to combine. Something is then going to be compromised, and it will be your rights, and not their profits.

You cannot throw a leash of government around any corporation any tighter than you may throw one around yourself - they must be allowed to get as rich as possible, to spend and save how they wish, to make mistakes and learn from them, and the legitimate use (if there is one) of government should be in protecting the rights of the parties by enforcing retribution and providing security.


The problem is that money buys everything, including the government, even if it is nominally insulated by being controlled by "the will of [50.1%] of the people," because money will buy those votes, in whatever roundabout way is needed. The monopolization of the Rule of Law, which can then be bought by special interests, is what the sickness is. Superpower corporations are merely a symptom.

 

[tmosley]

The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power"

--Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Fascist Dictator of Italy


I am against cut-throat business practices with a dog eat dog mentality. Our society has no morals and this is indicative of current businesses practices. In reality, it is illogical as a business gets what it pays for in labor costs; but most businesses in seeking the highest profits fail to factor that as they only see short term. (Speaking not regarding small mom and pop types but larger operations)

Our government is run by power brokers for the largest corporations. Government no longer considers the needs of its constituents, but rather panders to tptb in the shadows behind the largest global corporations. This was well evident when the first bailout was shoved through under threat of the economic destruction that has ensued, irregardless of the raping we got last fall and what they continue to extort from us.

No, my statement clearly misinterpreted by you, was that once again the government is pandering to those globalists that have mucked up our system and do not care about the majority of our society as we are "useless feeders". The government is supposed to be employed by us, but that is not the case. The laws and measures that are in place solely benefit a small number of eaters at the top.

Read Atlas Shrugged, then see if your opinion is still the same.

You sound like one of the "moochers" (politicians) from the same novel. As you read it, you will see where that mentality leads. When you finish reading it, and look around you, you'll see the exact same decay of society caused by the very problems the author was talking about. Then you will know what the answer to all of it is.

 

[acptulsa]

The quote from Mussolini shows that the problems can't be blamed on the business interests, but on allowing business interests and "rights protecting" interests to combine. Something is then going to be compromised, and it will be your rights, and not their profits.

The Democratic Party Fallacy, in a nutshell and very well put.

 

[moostraks]

Read Atlas Shrugged, then see if your opinion is still the same.

You sound like one of the "moochers" (politicians) from the same novel. As you read it, you will see where that mentality leads. When you finish reading it, and look around you, you'll see the exact same decay of society caused by the very problems the author was talking about. Then you will know what the answer to all of it is.

Wow...you are a real charmer. I have a problem with ruthless, selfish people. I have been subject to some of the vilest sides of human nature and not once have they been happy or successful in any meaningful sense of the word. If we have some sense of morality and scruples in our pathetic society we would not be in the predicament we are currently in, but that escapes those who think free market concepts involve embracing selfishness as a virtue.

True free market concepts would destroy the selfish producers because they produce inferior products at great cost to the true productive members of the society, labor. Instead, we have a government that protects large corporations by insulating them from their crimes against humanity and leave us with very little capacity to compete and no choice in the marketplace....

 

[JdotRdot]

...and has no data at all about how much less likely you are to get into a crash.

dude...if more people are dying this already disproves your claim
there has been no decrease in accidents. i remember reading about speed limits & they had the statistics for auto accidents...little to no change over the years

 

[tmosley]

Wow...you are a real charmer. I have a problem with ruthless, selfish people. I have been subject to some of the vilest sides of human nature and not once have they been happy or successful in any meaningful sense of the word. If we have some sense of morality and scruples in our pathetic society we would not be in the predicament we are currently in, but that escapes those who think free market concepts involve embracing selfishness as a virtue.

True free market concepts would destroy the selfish producers because they produce inferior products at great cost to the true productive members of the society, labor. Instead, we have a government that protects large corporations by insulating them from their crimes against humanity and leave us with very little capacity to compete and no choice in the marketplace....

Hey, truth hurts. The question is, what are you going to do about it? Hopefully you'll wax introspective and realize the folly of your ways.

Rational selfishness is the only good that can exist in this or any world, as it quickly builds a world where everyone has all of their needs fulfilled in order of importance to them, within the limits of the environment. Altruism by proxy (ie forcing others to give in order to benefit some third party) is the most insidious form of evil that can exist in this or any world, as it robs people of choice, and creates a class of moochers who can do nothing but beg for pity and curse their lot in life, and hate the "rich".

 

[carlangaslangas]

True free market concepts would destroy the selfish producers because they produce inferior products at great cost to the true productive members of the society, labor.

Selfish producers produce inferior products??
Steve Jobs is one of the most selfish men I know. But the iPhone, iPod and iMac are the best in their class. That guy is so selfish his products all start with "I".

 

[Bossobass]

dude...if more people are dying this already disproves your claim
there has been no decrease in accidents. i remember reading about speed limits & they had the statistics for auto accidents...little to no change over the years

It doesn't seem to me that you read those reports. Instead, it sounds like the TV news blurb version.

The lower limits showed little decrease in crashes because no one actually slowed down to comply with the lower limit.

The primary conclusion of this research is that the majority of motorist on the nonlimited access rural and urban highways examined in this study did not decrease or increase their speed as a result of either lowering or raising the posted speed limit by 4, 10, or 15 mi/h (8, 16, or 24 km/h). In other words, this nationwide study confirms the results of numerous other observational studies which found that the majority or motorist do not alter their speed to conform to speed limits they perceive as unreasonable for prevailing conditions.

Accidents and deaths definitely increased with the increase in size of vehicles.

Sport utility vehicles have the highest rate of deaths occurring in rollovers. Cars such as the Ford Explorer, Toyota 4 Runner, Isuzu Rodeo, and Honda Passport have been involved in SUV rollovers that have ended up in serious injuries and death. SUV rollovers are almost three times more likely to occur than the average passenger car, and government tests indicate the most stable SUV is still more unstable than the most unstable car. What does this say about the safety of SUVs on the road?

But, there's no dispute regarding increases in fuel efficiency:

Lowering speed limits can potentially reduce total fuel consumption. According to literature we reviewed examining the impact of the national speed limit enacted in 1974, the estimated fuel savings resulting from the 55 mph national speed limit ranged from 0.2 to 3 percent of annual gasoline consumption. According to DOE's 2008 estimate, a national speed limit of 55 mph could yield possible savings of 175,000 to 275,000 barrels of oil per day. This range is consistent with estimates of the impact of the past national speed limit. According to the Energy Information Administration, total U.S. consumption of petroleum for 2007 was about 21 million barrels of oil per day.

That's 100,000,000 barrels a year saved by lowering the limit to 55, using the existing fleet of lousy efficiency vehicles Americans (and no one else in the world) drive, that's only a 3% increase in efficiency.

An average fleet mileage increase from the current 20 mpg to 40 (the current average in Europe) mpg would knock a Billion barrels a year off the current 3.7 billion barrels a year we import. Japan's average fleet efficiency is 47 mpg.

IMO, anyone who buys that Ford and GM couldn't increase the fleet efficiency to the highest in the world and reduce oil imports (and, therefore, our staggering current account deficit) is delusional.

How many lives would have been saved if we hadn't illegally invaded the ME to create an oil monopoly to satisfy our lust to burn the shit?

The bottom line in any case is that it's all moot. When the carbon footprint tax is implemented, Americans will run, run, run to smaller, more fuel efficient cars... period. We'll be taxed into the same place Europeans, Japanese and Asians have been for years. It will simply be too expensive to drive a guzzler.

Bosso

 

[JdotRdot]

It doesn't seem to me that you read those reports. Instead, it sounds like the TV news blurb version.

The lower limits showed little decrease in crashes because no one actually slowed down to comply with the lower limit.

i read both reports, & you actually prov my point for me...i never said people slowed down, i said i raid a traffic report wherein it states that accidents have not lowered in the nation for decades...as according to the other guy i was talking to lighter cars = less accidents

Accidents and deaths definitely increased with the increase in size of vehicles.

when did i ever say size of vehicle?? i said weight...the same vehicle with 100 pounds less according to the report is more likely to be fatal in an accident

obviously you are the one who hasn't read the report
it has compiled info on various accidents & collisions between different types of cars...the lighter cars & SUV's always faired worse than their heavier counterparts (meaning more people died)

But, there's no dispute regarding increases in fuel efficiency:

i never disputed that

How many lives would have been saved if we hadn't illegally invaded the ME to create an oil monopoly to satisfy our lust to burn the shit?

completely unrelated issue...how bout we start drilling for oil here in america?? how bout we started using nuclear power?? that should alleviate some of the gravity

 

[moostraks]

Selfish producers produce inferior products??
Steve Jobs is one of the most selfish men I know. But the iPhone, iPod and iMac are the best in their class. That guy is so selfish his products all start with "I".

Selfish producers with no capacity of empathy for others, who run their business with employees in sweat shop atmospheres and utilize the government as a force to protect the minorites interests at the cost of the majority. Read a little deeper than a FOX news insight into what someone is saying....

People are inherently selfish by nature, it is the lack of empathy that is killing our society as the people at the top cannot see that they must care for their employees and produce a superior product. Mediocrity and failure are now rewarded through garnering bully control of a market and threatening economic suicide/homicide. Case in point-bankster bailouts...

 

[moostraks]

Hey, truth hurts. The question is, what are you going to do about it? Hopefully you'll wax introspective and realize the folly of your ways.

Rational selfishness is the only good that can exist in this or any world, as it quickly builds a world where everyone has all of their needs fulfilled in order of importance to them, within the limits of the environment. Altruism by proxy (ie forcing others to give in order to benefit some third party) is the most insidious form of evil that can exist in this or any world, as it robs people of choice, and creates a class of moochers who can do nothing but beg for pity and curse their lot in life, and hate the "rich".

You would know the truth if it bit you in the arse...

Rational selfishness is one thing, illegal control of a government established by and for the people which has become a mafia protecting a minority of selfish, overindulged parasites who are killing their hosts is another. Rationals such as your own is what brought us the federal reserve. Folks like you get your panties in a twist only when you are on the outside. Otherwise you would be fine with the status quo, as it appears by your statements it is what you seem to think capitalism is all about.

I love when folks try to put words in my mouth and think they know everything because they can so easily categorize everyone by a brief read. A clear indication of one's shallowness and vanity.(If the shoe fits, where it, but seldom do the vain realize the shoe fits...) Maybe you should try rereading what I post rather than thinking you can score some quick points by belittling someone. I never proposed altruism by proxy. I stated the government was protecting a minority at the cost of the majority. If you think this is inaccurate then you need to bring forth some proof.

The minority are those with the global corporations and the banksters. We the people, who represent the majority, can argue all we want, but we have been relegated to the too stupid to know what is good for us category. My case in point, bankster bailouts which are debts heaved upon the backs of producers to repay for those who gambled but are unwilling to cover their losses at the table. They lost almost nothing for the risks they took, but reaped substantial amounts while many who did not have any culpability for the situation will be paying off their blood money for generations to come in increased taxes.

You seem to be one of those cull the herd types that FOX panders to, no? Funny how folks have a way of reaping what they deserve by generally associating with like minded company. Not once have a met someone who had significant financial resources and who failed to respect the rights of others, who was a truly fulfilled person. Blind selfishness has a way of rewarding itself.

 

[tmosley]

I never proposed altruism by proxy.

Yet you defend it by defending the UAW. They are just as bad as the banksters.

Also, the false dichotomy you propose does not hold true. I think the banks need to fail too. I am consistent in my beliefs, you are not. You believe you are entitled to take what you want from management, and use the laws your "friends" have created to do it. You have forced people to unwillingly participate, and robbed them of their money (forcing them to pay dues). You are in the same class as them, can't you see that?

If you want to reform, you'll renounce support for the UAW. Until you do, you have about as much credibility as any Chicago politician.

 

[acptulsa]

dude...if more people are dying this already disproves your claim
there has been no decrease in accidents. i remember reading about speed limits & they had the statistics for auto accidents...little to no change over the years

Actually, the number of deaths in accidents goes down every time the number of miles traveled by road goes down, and the death rate per (however many) miles traveled has pretty much gone down every year. But that's all apples and oranges. My question is, compared to the number of miles driven by each type of vehicle, what is the accident rate. And I don't think they have any data on this. But quoting numbers without comparison--number of accidents compared to the accident rate compared to miles driven, for example--is like trying to get somewhere specific in a sailboat with no keel.

 

[JdotRdot]

Actually, the number of deaths in accidents goes down every time the number of miles traveled by road goes down, and the death rate per (however many) miles traveled has pretty much gone down every year. But that's all apples and oranges. My question is, compared to the number of miles driven by each type of vehicle, what is the accident rate. And I don't think they have any data on this. But quoting numbers without comparison--number of accidents compared to the accident rate compared to miles driven, for example--is like trying to get somewhere specific in a sailboat with no keel.

so?? what's your point?? that the less you drive a car the less likely it is you will be in an accident?? that's common sense if you ask me

fact still remains...the less a vehicle weighs, the more likely you are to die compared to the same make & model vehicle of previous years that were heavier