Billions of taxpayer money for the automotive industry
Hans-Joachim Zierke
US auto manufacturers get 25 billion of sweet government-backed credits.
7.5 billion of taxpayer money will be used to back these credits.
Hans-Joachim
--
Four trains on this picture, and memories of more ...
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/8/0/9/6809.1219467701.jpg
John Kane
wrote:
> US auto manufacturers get 25 billion of sweet government-backed credits.
>
> 7.5 billion of taxpayer money will be used to back these credits.
The rewards for sustained failure?
John Kane Kingston ON Canada.
Jack May
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrngdv7f1.ev8...@Odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
> US auto manufacturers get 25 billion of sweet government-backed credits.
>
> 7.5 billion of taxpayer money will be used to back these credits.
Yes, and these actions have more than paid back the Fed with lots of profit
going into the treasury. The bail outs of rail have of course produced
unending need for more money with continual losses for the Fed.
Big difference between viable modern business with a future and the rails
pushed by born losers that can never accomplish anything of worth to
society.
rsh...@gmail.com
> "Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenetspam...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
Jackie Baby, you are so full of fucking shit, and such a fucking LIAR.
Chrysler for all the billions they made on minivans is right back in
the same hole they were in the 70's. none oif them learned anything.
So let them go. Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, etc will all take over, and
you know what the best thing is???
The Reason Foundation will go under also, and hopefully take you with
it. You are nothing but a fucking LIAR, and a sack of shit.
Lüko Willms
<jack...@comcast.net> auf misc.transport.rail.americas :
> > US auto manufacturers get 25 billion of sweet government-backed credits.
> >
> > 7.5 billion of taxpayer money will be used to back these credits.
>
> Yes, and these actions have more than paid back the Fed with lots of profit
> going into the treasury.
We are talking not of past activity, but on recent decisions. Can
you look so far into the future, that you can speak about the years to
come in the past tense?
Cheers,
L.W.
Jack May
"Lüko Willms" <l.wi...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:czd2LKcn8EGd-p...@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de...
We don't know the details, but the new funding is probably based on some
payback approach like past approaches. After all the car companies are
developing radical new technology that has a chance of meeting a major
demand for flexibility for using different new fuels as oil becomes too
expensive. Seems like a good way to make money.
Lüko Willms
<jack...@comcast.net> auf misc.transport.rail.americas :
> We don't know the details, but the new funding is probably based
> expensive. Seems like a good way to make money.
So you favor big state money for schemes "to make money" (as with
Wall Street), but oppose strictly and state money for human needs.
Cheers,
L.W.
Merritt Mullen
"Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Lüko Willms" <l.wi...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
> news:czd2LKcn8EGd-p...@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de...
> > Am Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:06:12 UTC, schrieb "Jack May"
> > <jack...@comcast.net> auf misc.transport.rail.americas :
> >
> >> > US auto manufacturers get 25 billion of sweet government-backed
> >> > credits.
> We don't know the details...
The bill has passed the House, so why don't you (we? are you twins?)
know the details? Too scary?
Merritt
Candide
"Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mmullen8014-AF67...@netnews.mchsi.com...
Never a huge fan of bailouts, ear-marking or whatever one calls hauling
out the United States Treasury for political gain,but the automotive
bill is slightly different.
To be fair, the United States government has mandated certain changes
for automobiles in terms of energy efficiency, and while we can go on
for days about whether or not car makers should have been making these
changes all along, we're not on that right now.
Auto making is probably one of the few if last remaining big
manufacturing base left in the United States, and it's woes are
devastating large parts of the mid-west and other parts of the country.
When car makers shut down plants and production, it spreads like a bad
disease across the country as parts and other suppliers take the hit as
well. It all translates into vast unemployment and or lower wages, which
further depresses local and national economies. Have we learned nothing
from what happened to "Big Steel"?
IIRC, the plan proposed is not a handout, or even a bailout, but rather
along the lines of the Chrysler "bailout" where the United States
actually made money on the deal.
Jack May
"Lüko Willms" <l.wi...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:czd2LKcn8EGd-p...@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de...
Rail is not for human needs. It is for politicians to get political
publicity. Rail seldom helps more than an insignificant number of people.
Jobs help a lot of people but you apparently you can connect heavily used
product, lots of jobs for people, and highly efficient transportation system
require for job growth.
You apparently thing only highly ineffective, long obsolete rail systems are
somehow for "human needs". A totally insane, highly irrational view.
You have obviously graduated from being just a technology laggard to
crossing over to the area of transit supporters with significant mental
problems.
Jack May
"Candide" <PityM...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:efgEk.861$kI6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Even more important is all the car companies are developing the next
generation of hybrid cars that will make it easy to have multiple engine
designs to select from to use alternative fuels to end our dependence on
oil. This is like the Chevy Volt where the only power connection are simple
wires to send the electricity to charge the batteries of the hybrid.
This essentially means when the surprises happen as always, it will be
simple to unbolt the old gas engine and for example bolt down a green algae
engine with little work or expense. Connect the generator output to the
hybrid battery control system.
Green algae is considered by the airplane and other companies as the most
promising alternative fuel for the future. A special variety that produces
60% Diesel and eventually 90% diesel on the top of large saltwater areas,
not farm land. Sort of like that algae (probably the wrong type) that
covered the bay in China just before the Olympics.
Yes the industry is in rapid development which is needed to provide jobs and
keep competitive with the rest of the world. You can bet Asia and probably
Europe are trying their best to retain their car industries. No rational
person thinks there is any real alternative to the car for most real world
transportation systems.
Lüko Willms
<jack...@comcast.net> auf misc.transport.rail.americas :
> "Lüko Willms" <l.wi...@domain.invalid> wrote
> > So you favor big state money for schemes "to make money" (as with
> > Wall Street), but oppose strictly and state money for human needs.
>
> Rail is not for human needs.
Aha, so my travel needs are not human, you dare to say? What is so
inhuman in my travel?
> It is for politicians to get political publicity.
They get more publicity by trying to save the Wallstreet Casino.
> Rail seldom helps more than an insignificant number of people.
Millions of people use trains everyday here in Germany.
> Jobs help a lot of people but you apparently you can connect heavily used
> product, lots of jobs for people, and highly efficient transportation system
> require for job growth.
this is rail.
> You apparently thing only highly ineffective, long obsolete rail systems are
> somehow for "human needs".
If you want to say, that the passenger rail system in the USofA is
very ineffective and long obsolete, I will not contradict you.
But the solution for that is to make it efficient, not to let it rot
even more. Do you want more bridges to crash with people on it, as
happened quite recently in, I think, the Twin Cities?
> A totally insane, highly irrational view.
Aha.
Cheers,
L.W.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Candide schrieb:
> Auto making is probably one of the few if last remaining big
> manufacturing base left in the United States, and it's woes are
> devastating large parts of the mid-west and other parts of the country.
> When car makers shut down plants and production, it spreads like a bad
> disease across the country as parts and other suppliers take the hit as
> well. It all translates into vast unemployment and or lower wages, which
> further depresses local and national economies. Have we learned nothing
> from what happened to "Big Steel"?
That sounds logical, but the question is, wether the deal also includes
well-designed guarantees in writing, that it will have the result of low
fuel consumption.
Looking at the past, at the history of CAFE circumvention strategies
(which now turned out to have been suicide strategies), further looking
forward to the next years, which will see moderate fuel prices due to an
US recession and lower US demand, I would otherwise expect another
repeat of the same.
Greg Gritton
> "Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:mmullen8014-AF67...@netnews.mchsi.com...
>
> Never a huge fan of bailouts, ear-marking or whatever one calls
> hauling out the United States Treasury for political gain,but the
> automotive bill is slightly different.
>
> To be fair, the United States government has mandated certain changes
> for automobiles in terms of energy efficiency, and while we can go on
> for days about whether or not car makers should have been making these
> changes all along, we're not on that right now.
>
> Auto making is probably one of the few if last remaining big
> manufacturing base left in the United States, and it's woes are
> devastating large parts of the mid-west and other parts of the
> country. When car makers shut down plants and production, it spreads
> like a bad disease across the country as parts and other suppliers
> take the hit as well. It all translates into vast unemployment and or
> lower wages, which further depresses local and national economies.
> Have we learned nothing from what happened to "Big Steel"?
While this is true, subsidizing the US automobile manufacturers
won't necessarily mean more jobs. The "big three", Ford, GM, and
Crysler, are happy to manufacture cars in Mexico, while Honda and
Toyota manufacture quite a few of their cars in the US. Toyota,
and likely Honda, will develop quality hybrids and other high-mileage
cars without any sort of bailout. Meanwhile, the executives of
the failing US car companies are making millions.
There likely are much better ways of spending money, and
ensuring that the money will mean US jobs, than propping up
failing automobile companies with greedy executives that make
bad decision after bad decision.
Greg Gritton
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Rail is not for human needs.
Yes, it is.
> It is for politicians to get political
> publicity.
People are sick of being killed on highways and wasting their valuable
time in traffic jams and searching for non-existent parking spaces.
The public knows today's highway and aviation system is a failure and
they're sick of it; so they vote for new systems.
So, Jack, we're still waiting for you to explain, in layman's terms,
your power curve articles you quoted to support your arguments.
pet...@panix.com
> Big difference between viable modern business with a future and the rails
> pushed by born losers that can never accomplish anything of worth to
> society.
Cry me a river. Jack May, your siderodromophobia is showing again.
On Sep 28, 9:28 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> We don't know the details, but the new funding is probably based on some
> payback approach like past approaches. After all the car companies are
> developing radical new technology that has a chance of meeting a major
> demand for flexibility for using different new fuels as oil becomes too
> expensive. Seems like a good way to make money.
And what magic fuels are those?
And given the track record of the US Big Three on their "car of the
future" bullshit, I'll believe it when I see it.
On Sep 29, 7:49 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> Rail is not for human needs. It is for politicians to get political
> publicity. Rail seldom helps more than an insignificant number of people.
Demonstrably false. Although trains can't go everywhere, they don't
have to -- just to where large numbers of people are.
> You have obviously graduated from being just a technology laggard to
> crossing over to the area of transit supporters with significant mental
> problems.
Are you sure that you are free of such problems, Jack May? You do seem
to have a case of siderodromophobia, you know.
And what kind of technology laggards build trains capable of 350+ mph?
Like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJfDWtbioEM
On Sep 29, 8:04 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> Even more important is all the car companies are developing the next
> generation of hybrid cars that will make it easy to have multiple engine
> designs to select from to use alternative fuels to end our dependence on
> oil. This is like the Chevy Volt where the only power connection are simple
> wires to send the electricity to charge the batteries of the hybrid.
I'll believe it when I see it. They haven't tried to compete with the
Toyota Prius, so why should we expect them to start now?
BTW, Toyota developed the Prius after taking seriously US companies'
"car of the future" bullshit.
> Green algae is considered by the airplane and other companies as the most
> promising alternative fuel for the future. A special variety that produces
> 60% Diesel and eventually 90% diesel on the top of large saltwater areas,
> not farm land.
Although this technology does avoid the worst aspects of typical
present-day biofuels schemes, it is not exactly a very mature
technology. Wind and solar are *much* farther along, for instance.
> Yes the industry is in rapid development which is needed to provide jobs and
> keep competitive with the rest of the world.
Such "rapid development" that the major US car companies need a
bailout. Right. *sarcasm*
> You can bet Asia and probably
> Europe are trying their best to retain their car industries. No rational
> person thinks there is any real alternative to the car for most real world
> transportation systems.
Only in your one-size-fits-all dreams.
Jack May
"Lüko Willms" <l.wi...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:czd2LKcn8EGd-p...@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de...
> <jack...@comcast.net> auf misc.transport.rail.americas :
>
>> "Lüko Willms" <l.wi...@domain.invalid> wrote
>
>> > So you favor big state money for schemes "to make money" (as with
>> > Wall Street), but oppose strictly and state money for human needs.
>>
>> Rail is not for human needs.
>
> Aha, so my travel needs are not human, you dare to say? What is so
No you were implying that only trains meet human needs. What a total load
of ignorant crap.
>
>> It is for politicians to get political publicity.
>
> They get more publicity by trying to save the Wallstreet Casino
More of your ignorant crap. There are no automobile production jobs on
Wallstreet. It is obvious you have gone over the edge from technology
laggard to just irrational and little sanity.
.
>
>> Rail seldom helps more than an insignificant number of people.
>
> Millions of people use trains everyday here in Germany.
So fucking what, they still do over 80% of their travel in cars. Rail is a
major failure in decline all around the world.
>
>> Jobs help a lot of people but you apparently you can connect heavily used
>> product, lots of jobs for people, and highly efficient transportation
>> system
>> require for job growth.
>
> this is rail.
Huh? Efficiency is measure in the time of people, not other parameters.
>
>> You apparently thing only highly ineffective, long obsolete rail systems
>> are
>> somehow for "human needs".
>
> If you want to say, that the passenger rail system in the USofA is
> very ineffective and long obsolete, I will not contradict you.
The European rail system has been losing using market share for decades and
is also obsolete. Same problem with any technology people try to keep
going way past its usefulness. You apparently are very ignorant of
technology evolution and society.
>
> But the solution for that is to make it efficient, not to let it rot
> even more.
Technology evolution means exactly when the technology is obsolete, there is
almost no possibility to improve it.
Do you want more bridges to crash with people on it, as
> happened quite recently in, I think, the Twin Cities?
You are talking about maintenance. You obviously don't understand even
basic concepts of technology evolution.
Jack May
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:4a2fe853-3a8a-46df...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 10:49 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> Rail is not for human needs.
?Yes, it is.
Rail is well known to be extremely poor in meeting human needs which is why
it attracts so few people.
> It is for politicians to get political
> publicity.
?People are sick of being killed on highways and wasting their valuable
?time in traffic jams and searching for non-existent parking spaces.
?The public knows today's highway and aviation system is a failure and
?they're sick of it; so they vote for new systems.
The biggest waste of time is the 2 to 4 times longer it takes to get to get
to somewhere on transit. As I have shown many times, the death rate for
transit for both inside and outside of vehicle is in the same ball park as
cars. The difference is that we are going into decades of technology that
will reduce the accident and death rate of cars far, far below transit.
>So, Jack, we're still waiting for you to explain, in layman's terms,
>your power curve articles you quoted to support your arguments.
I was explaining power law statistics and why that made average high
unreliable. That has absolutely nothing to do with this post. Are there
some other power curves that you are talking about or do you have any idea
of what you are wanting explained. I can't understand what you are asking
for.
Jack May
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
>
> Candide schrieb:
>
>
>> Auto making is probably one of the few if last remaining big
>> manufacturing base left in the United States, and it's woes are
>> devastating large parts of the mid-west and other parts of the country.
>> When car makers shut down plants and production, it spreads like a bad
>> disease across the country as parts and other suppliers take the hit as
>> well. It all translates into vast unemployment and or lower wages, which
>> further depresses local and national economies. Have we learned nothing
>> from what happened to "Big Steel"?
>
>
> That sounds logical, but the question is, wether the deal also includes
> well-designed guarantees in writing, that it will have the result of low
> fuel consumption.
What ignorant crap. The fuel economy is put on the car windows and highly
advertised.
>
> Looking at the past, at the history of CAFE circumvention strategies
> (which now turned out to have been suicide strategies), further looking
> forward to the next years, which will see moderate fuel prices due to an
> US recession and lower US demand, I would otherwise expect another
> repeat of the same.
The CAFE standard in the US now tend to underestimate MPG. The CAFE for my
car around town is 31 mpg, I actually get 35 MPG
Jack May
"Greg Gritton" <gritto...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5eff918a196298...@netnews.comcast.net...
In other words they should not even try to compete.
.
> There likely are much better ways of spending money, and
> ensuring that the money will mean US jobs, than propping up
> failing automobile companies with greedy executives that make
> bad decision after bad decision.
More ignorant hatred.
Jack May
<pet...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:a74c3518-5c22-4425...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 28, 9:28 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Big difference between viable modern business with a future and the rails
>> pushed by born losers that can never accomplish anything of worth to
>> society.
>
> Cry me a river. Jack May, your siderodromophobia is showing again.
>
> On Sep 28, 9:28 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>> We don't know the details, but the new funding is probably based on some
>> payback approach like past approaches. After all the car companies are
>> developing radical new technology that has a chance of meeting a major
>> demand for flexibility for using different new fuels as oil becomes too
>> expensive. Seems like a good way to make money.
>
> And what magic fuels are those?
There are multiple fuel approaches that are being developed. As I said
before, a lot of people think that green algea approaches have the best
potential capabilities.
>
> And given the track record of the US Big Three on their "car of the
> future" bullshit, I'll believe it when I see it.
Nobody care what you think because you have no capability to do anything
usefu;
>
> On Sep 29, 7:49 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Rail is not for human needs. It is for politicians to get political
>> publicity. Rail seldom helps more than an insignificant number of
>> people.
>
> Demonstrably false. Although trains can't go everywhere, they don't
> have to -- just to where large numbers of people are.
You are obviouly have no understanding of what is required to have
successful transportation systems.
>
>> You have obviously graduated from being just a technology laggard to
>> crossing over to the area of transit supporters with significant mental
>> problems.
>
> Are you sure that you are free of such problems, Jack May? You do seem
> to have a case of siderodromophobia, you know.
I am on the opposite edge where innovation and early adoption is prominent.
Many people like me drive the future of society, not wallow in failure and
the past like you. Technology laggard research is clear that they
contribute almost nothing to society of much value.
>
> And what kind of technology laggards build trains capable of 350+ mph?
Putting a big motor in a train is not technology cutting edge advancement.
> Like:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJfDWtbioEM
>
> On Sep 29, 8:04 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Even more important is all the car companies are developing the next
>> generation of hybrid cars that will make it easy to have multiple engine
>> designs to select from to use alternative fuels to end our dependence on
>> oil. This is like the Chevy Volt where the only power connection are
>> simple
>> wires to send the electricity to charge the batteries of the hybrid.
>
> I'll believe it when I see it. They haven't tried to compete with the
> Toyota Prius, so why should we expect them to start now?
>
Because there are a large number of new hybrid designs coming out in the
next few year. They are not starting now, they have been developing to
bring it to market. You are just totally out of touch with what is
happening.
> BTW, Toyota developed the Prius after taking seriously US companies'
> "car of the future" bullshit.
The car companies are competing with each other and you are just showing off
your ignorance/
>
>> Green algae is considered by the airplane and other companies as the most
>> promising alternative fuel for the future. A special variety that
>> produces
>> 60% Diesel and eventually 90% diesel on the top of large saltwater areas,
>> not farm land.
>
> Although this technology does avoid the worst aspects of typical
> present-day biofuels schemes, it is not exactly a very mature
> technology. Wind and solar are *much* farther along, for instance.
Mature technology? Are you even aware that technology takes time to
develop. Is your head totally up your ass. Quit being so totally clueless
about the world.
>
>> Yes the industry is in rapid development which is needed to provide jobs
>> and
>> keep competitive with the rest of the world.
>
> Such "rapid development" that the major US car companies need a
> bailout. Right. *sarcasm*
Oh yea it can be done for free because highly skilled people work for free.
Your head is still way up your ass.
>
>> You can bet Asia and probably
>> Europe are trying their best to retain their car industries. No rational
>> person thinks there is any real alternative to the car for most real
>> world
>> transportation systems.
>
> Only in your one-size-fits-all dreams.
Since you are obviously retarded, it is well known that in technology
evolution, old technologies are killed off by new technologies because the
new technologies must be better than the old to gain their place in the
market. To obsolete technology like trains around results in extremely
high cost and highly ineffective performance.
Lüko Willms
<jack...@comcast.net> auf misc.transport.rail.americas :
> The biggest waste of time is the 2 to 4 times longer it takes to get to get
> to somewhere on transit.
While this is true for many relations (I preferred the car for my
way to work, because it took me 20 minutes by car, but an hour by
public transit), the opposite is true for many others. I also had the
luck of going against the current, out of the big city, into a suburb
for working, and was very quick on a highway (Autobahn) from where I
live. With public transit, I would have to change trains twice, and
walk some distance from the final station to my workplace.
But when I worked closer to the city, I preferred public transit,
because it was much faster and much more convenient. Finding a place
to park the car for the day's work could take longer than the trip
itself, and parking can be costly. At one place, I had a collegue who
paid more for parking at the work place than what a month pass for the
public transit system would have costed her.
On long distance travel, too, the train (here in Germany) is hard to
beat for many distances in travel time and comfort. There are, of
course, other cases -- I do have some relatives who are farmers and
whose farms are somewhere out in the bush, where not even a bus runs
on Sundays. One has to rely on being picked up at the nearest station,
or take a taxi.
But, e.g. for going to Hannover, Cologne, Stuttgart, Hamburg or
Berlin from where I live, Frankfurt on Main, the train is the fastest
way to go.
There is a lot of potential for more, and that's why more high-speed
rail lines are being built (one will cut travel between Berlin and
Germany's third largest city, Munich, from now five and a half hours
to about four.
I am sure, that this would be feasable for a lot of relations within
North America, too.
What is not at all sensible are your categoric statements like this
> Rail is well known to be extremely poor in meeting human needs which is why
> it attracts so few people.
which is simply wrong as a general statement.
Now for something completely different:
> As I have shown many times, the death rate for
> transit for both inside and outside of vehicle is in the same ball park as
> cars.
I haven't seen those, and I know that it is not true. While the
death rate in car accidents has fallen dramatically here in Germany
over the past decades, from about 40'000 per year to now much less
than 10'000, there are still much more accidents on the road than on
rails.
Cheers,
L.W.
pet...@panix.com
> "Lüko Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
> news:czd2LKcn8EGd-p...@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de...
> > Am Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:49:00 UTC, schrieb "Jack May"
> >> Rail seldom helps more than an insignificant number of people.
> > Millions of people use trains everyday here in Germany.
> So fucking what, they still do over 80% of their travel in cars. Rail is a
> major failure in decline all around the world.
Rhetoric that would make Joey Jolley proud.
And judging from the construction and modernization of rail-transit
systems the world over, one would think the opposite. Trains cannot go
everywhere, but they do fill a certain transportation niche. European
high-speed trains can successfully compete with short-distance
airliners, for instance.
> The European rail system has been losing using market share for decades and
> is also obsolete. Same problem with any technology people try to keep
> going way past its usefulness. You apparently are very ignorant of
> technology evolution and society.
Calling high-speed trains obsolete is absurd.
> Technology evolution means exactly when the technology is obsolete, there is
> almost no possibility to improve it.
And what makes a technology obsolete? Do you travel everywhere in an
electric wheelchair because walking is too low-tech?
On Sep 30, 8:06 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> The biggest waste of time is the 2 to 4 times longer it takes to get to get
> to somewhere on transit.
That's an AVERAGE figure, but what can one expect from someone with a
fixation on one-size-fits-all solutions?
> As I have shown many times, the death rate for
> transit for both inside and outside of vehicle is in the same ball park as
> cars.
Demonstrably false. Cars are over 10 times worse.
> The difference is that we are going into decades of technology that
> will reduce the accident and death rate of cars far, far below transit.
Horseshit.
Such technologies can also be useful for buses and trains.
On Sep 30, 8:26 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> There are multiple fuel approaches that are being developed. As I said
> before, a lot of people think that green algea approaches have the best
> potential capabilities.
I'll believe it when I see it.
> > On Sep 29, 7:49 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Rail is not for human needs. It is for politicians to get political
> >> publicity. Rail seldom helps more than an insignificant number of
> >> people.
> > Demonstrably false. Although trains can't go everywhere, they don't
> > have to -- just to where large numbers of people are.
> You are obviouly have no understanding of what is required to have
> successful transportation systems.
Thank you for describing yourself with your one-size-fits-all
carheadedness. Now why don't you go troll some air-travel forum some
time about what a dumb thing air travel is when you can drive
everywhere?
> Many people like me drive the future of society, not wallow in failure and
> the past like you. Technology laggard research is clear that they
> contribute almost nothing to society of much value.
An ignorant sneer that's not really worth responding to.
> > And what kind of technology laggards build trains capable of 350+ mph?
> Putting a big motor in a train is not technology cutting edge advancement.
So you think that high-speed-train development is a Luddite sort of
thing?
> > On Sep 29, 8:04 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Even more important is all the car companies are developing the next
> >> generation of hybrid cars ...
> > I'll believe it when I see it. They haven't tried to compete with the
> > Toyota Prius, so why should we expect them to start now?
> Because there are a large number of new hybrid designs coming out in the
> next few year. ...
I'll believe it when I see it. The US car companies have had plenty of
opportunity to compete with the Toyota Prius, but they didn't, and I
doubt that they'll change their minds anytime soon.
> Since you are obviously retarded, it is well known that in technology
> evolution, old technologies are killed off by new technologies because the
> new technologies must be better than the old to gain their place in the
> market. To obsolete technology like trains around results in extremely
> high cost and highly ineffective performance.
There you go again.
Why don't you prove to us that trains are obsolete?
Bolwerk
> "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>> As I have shown many times, the death rate for
>> transit for both inside and outside of vehicle is in the same ball park as
>> cars.
>
> Demonstrably false. Cars are over 10 times worse.
I read something a while ago where someone took all murders + all car
accidents in various jurisdictions and counted them under the single
category "violent deaths." By this standard, even more dangerous cities
are generally safer than suburbs. Cars are THAT dangerous.
K
> So fucking what, they still do over 80% of their travel in cars. Rail is a
> major failure in decline all around the world.
.
Zürich is the financial capital of Switzerland. It is a city with a
highly developped financial services industry. It is the place Google
choose for it's European engineering centre. It has the highest
average personal income in Europe and some of the lowest taxes. The
Zürich metropolitan area has about 1 million commuters.
Over half of them commute by public transit.
Ofcourse, since this flies in the face of your preconceptions it
cannot be true. But it is.
Since the suburban railway network started in 1990 the number of
people traveling on it has almost doubled. The number of people
entering Zürich by car has remained constant. On a random day public
transport in the downtown area transports about double the amount of
people cars do. In other words, without public transit there woule be
three times as many cars on the road. Or more like, the city would be
a lot poorer.
This is a wealthy, first world city, with people who tend to vote
centre-right, with a consistently high quality of living.
But if can't exist ofcourse, because, if something like Zürich were to
really exist, this would mean that Jack May would be lying. And we
can't have that., can't we :-)
(But Zürich exists...)
K
> The biggest waste of time is the 2 to 4 times longer it takes to get to get
> to somewhere on transit.
Actually on my commute travel times are similar by car and by public
transit. On the train I can answer my email though. Something I can't
do in a car...
Robert Bonomi
Jack May <jack...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Greg Gritton" <gritto...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:5eff918a196298...@netnews.comcast.net...
>>
>>
>> won't necessarily mean more jobs. The "big three", Ford, GM, and
>> Crysler, are happy to manufacture cars in Mexico, while Honda and
>> Toyota manufacture quite a few of their cars in the US. Toyota,
>> and likely Honda, will develop quality hybrids and other high-mileage
>> cars without any sort of bailout. Meanwhile, the executives of
>> the failing US car companies are making millions.
>
>In other words they should not even try to compete.
Isn't that _exactly_ what *you* advocate regarding passenger rail?
The technology used by the 'big 3' automakers is obselete, you say,
just like what you say about passenger rail.
WHY DO YOU NOT advocate the same treatment for both?
George Conklin
"Robert Bonomi" <bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote in message
news:jKydnTRL5sf24XjV...@posted.nuvoxcommunications...
The cost of rail travel for passengers is excessive compared to all other
modes, except private jets. It always has been very high too. Passenger
rail right now clogs up the system and diverts freight to the highways.
Candide
"Robert Bonomi" <bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote in message
news:jKydnTRL5sf24XjV...@posted.nuvoxcommunications...
Toyota, Chrysler, Honda and the other Asian car makers were of course
VERY happy to set up shop in the United States. They had "poor" southern
US states jumping over each other with various tax breaks and such to
locate plants within their borders, and were able to set up non-union
shops. Furthermore these new Asian plants do not have either the health
care nor legacy (pension) costs of the Big Three.
If the big three were allowed to ditch the UAW, reduce or in some cases
eliminate health care coverage for current and pensioned employees,
along with substantial property and other state and local tax
reductions, then things might be different.
>
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Candide schrieb:
> Toyota, Chrysler, Honda and the other Asian car makers were of course
> VERY happy to set up shop in the United States. They had "poor" southern
> US states jumping over each other with various tax breaks and such to
> locate plants within their borders, and were able to set up non-union
> shops. Furthermore these new Asian plants do not have either the health
> care nor legacy (pension) costs of the Big Three.
>
> If the big three were allowed to ditch the UAW, reduce or in some cases
> eliminate health care coverage for current and pensioned employees,
> along with substantial property and other state and local tax
> reductions, then things might be different.
This is a direct fallout of having company health care and company
pension instead of a public system. All over the US economic system, it
favours US startups or foreign companies setting up plant, and punishes
US industries with a long tradition.
USA car sales were 26.6% down in September. This time, not only the
big three were hit, but others as well. For example, Mercedes lost 8.5%.
(Without the Smart, it would have been 16.4%. Somebody made a lucky
decision!) Toyota lost about 30%.
Hans-Joachim
--
Evening in Mannheim
http://www.johannes-friedrich.de/matthias/Fotos/bild_der_woche/P1060646_klein_2.jpg
Stephen Sprunk
> Interesting side light to that.. Heard on the radio that the Fed in NYC is
> actually owned by CITI and a consortium of a few other banks... including
> Mellon, who just got WAMU for a song...
That is correct. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks are private
corporations (not gov't agencies, as many folks assume) owned by their
members, which purchase non-marketable stock to join. However, since
the board is appointed by the President and all dividends are supposedly
paid to the Treasury, it's not usually relevant.
I won't comment on the rest of your claims regarding the bailout, since
I haven't studied it enough to have any clue what's really going on.
Nor, I doubt, have most of the folks in Congress that voted for it.
They just saw how long it took Japan to recover from a similar crisis
and are praying that early intervention (which the Japanese didn't do)
will prevent the same from happening here.
S