How Not To Save Detroit
C. E. White
http://www.minyanville.com/audiovideo/703/1/23
Ed
necromancer - ECHM
I still got a laugh out of it. Any guesses on when Fiat-Chrysler (or
will it be Chrysler-Fiat) files for Chapter 7?
--
F ix
I t
A gain,
T ony!
Frog Breeches
They bailed out Wall Street and Global Speculators and Banking.
They should have bailed out the victims and let them(us)rescue the firms
deserving bailing out with our spending.
The result we have is that there is endless supply, of proposed and
already implemented tax increases, fees, revenue enhancement, lost jobs,
manufacturing base, and a devaluing currency.
That's all upside down and they keep talking about preserving and
improving it.
Brent
> C. E. White wrote:
>> Would be really funny except it is a little too close to the truth:
>>
>> http://www.minyanville.com/audiovideo/703/1/23
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
> They didn't bail out Detroit or American Industry or Americans.
> They bailed out Wall Street and Global Speculators and Banking.
> They should have bailed out the victims and let them(us)rescue the firms
> deserving bailing out with our spending.
The bankers' people in the government bailed out the bankers. Goldman
Sachs didn't give all that money to Obama just for fun.
> The result we have is that there is endless supply, of proposed and
> already implemented tax increases, fees, revenue enhancement, lost jobs,
> manufacturing base, and a devaluing currency.
> That's all upside down and they keep talking about preserving and
> improving it.
Sometimes one might think that's what they want achieve.
GM is the brink of becoming the Amtrack of autos.
Hachiroku ハチロク
Someone (in the Toyota group) suggested a payment of $1M to every American
over 50, with certain stipulations:
You had to 'retire'.
You had to pay off any mortgages.
You had to buy a new American car.
I would suggest $2M...
I'd buy TWO American cars.
I'd sell my house for less than market value and build a brand new one.
I'd 'retire' but still keep some kind of job that no one else would want
(like the one I have...It's not full time)
That would have stimulated the economy a hell of a lot better than what
Barry did, AND cost exactly One Fu@k of a lot less.
cuh...@webtv.net
We couldn't have done it without the ''Rosies''
Saturday is the 65th Anniversary of D Day.
www.ddaymuseum.org
www.devilfinder.com
Code Name Exercise Tiger
cuhulin
Hachiroku ハチロク
> www.rosietheriveter.org
> We couldn't have done it without the ''Rosies''
>
> Saturday is the 65th Anniversary of D Day.
> www.ddaymuseum.org
Yup. And the Muslim Sympathizer-In-Chief will be in Normandy...
krp
"C. E. White" <cewh...@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4a298690$1@kcnews01...
> Would be really funny except it is a little too close to the truth:
> http://www.minyanville.com/audiovideo/703/1/23
The 2011 Chrysler Torpedo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14583963@N00/370620790/
And the new 2011 Chrysler Town and Country SPORTSTER HEMI
http://www.flickr.com/photos/prague-cars/172710216/
Wait till you see the new GM cars as designed by NANCY PELOSI
krp
"necromancer - ECHM" <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote in
message news:6h3j25900ftu8opje...@4ax.com...
The 2012 Cadillac Vaginator as designed by NANCY PELOSI and Congress
krp
"Brent" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h0cbbk$nb1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
HEY WAIT! Nancy Pelosi has PLANS to SAVE GM and bring it back to its former
glory. She has designed a 2012 SUV that is GREEN for Chevrolet.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/84685146@N00/347429384/
fred
Fiat stands for: Ok Enzo, you can keep your job - until you stop making
cars that no longer perform. Look it up. Fiat owns Alfa Romeo which was
one of the very *first* race car companys period. Certainly the only one
still around - excepting possibly Mercedes Benz. Enzo started working
there, stole bucketloads of their research, formed Ferrari, and the rest
is history. If Fiat buys *any* part of Chrysler you can be sure it's the
only part that's worth anything. Wild guess: the engine works and nothing
else.
MG
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.06.0...@e86.GTS...
That one's been kicking around for awhile. Do the math:
How many Americans over 50? The number I keep seeing is 40 million.
Multiply that by 1,000,000 and you get 40 trillion. Where does that come
from?
cuh...@webtv.net
Daimler Chrysler.
cuhulin
cuh...@webtv.net
still be happy with her Fiat Punto Car.
The name, Car, is derived from the Irish Celtic name/word, Carrus.
cuhulin, the Celt
Hachiroku ハチロク
I'll still line up...
cavedweller
He's probably like my friend who proposed it to me six months
ago....an accountant
Brent
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/84685146@N00/347429384/
In three years GM will be profitable and the government can sell it off
just like Nixon promised with amtrack!
Brent
> In message <h0i2e1$4j2$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Brent
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>In three years GM will be profitable and the government can sell it off
>>just like Nixon promised with amtrack!
>
Actually his adminstration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkSVox-SEuI It's mentioned at ~3:15
also see: http://www.slate.com/?id=2067378
"AmtrakThe little engine that couldn't."
And http://www.wikileaks.com/leak/crs/RL31473.pdf
And http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0511g.asp
"The U.S. Transportation Department took over a group of overregulated
private railroads that were bankrupt. The department wrote of Amtrak,
.It is expected that the corporation would experience financial losses
for about three years and then become a self-sustaining enterprise.."
krp
Yeah right. In 3 years there will be NO General Motors. the CEO - STILL
doesn't know how to START a car! When you have an asshole with a Harvard
MBA (bean counting) degree who has absolutely NO idea what makes the tin
MOVE - what do you think we're going to get? MORE OF THE SAME "SHIT" has
built for the last 40 years. Listen to the GOOF at his "PRESS" conferences,
when he is asked a simple CAR question - his eyes start to glaze over and he
gets this dumb, deer in the headlights expression on his face and starts
going; "Duhhhhhhhhhhhh!" Tell me this, let's forget for a second that GM
cars have been PURE SHIT. Let's PRETEND that they start building GOOD cars.
Why buy an ALMOST Toyota for $65,000 when you can buy a REAL Toyota for
$18,000? The jerk just doesn't GET IT! EVEN IF the GM plants re-tooled to
make the TOYOTA AN EXACT copy, manufacturing costs AT A MINIMUM would
require it to cost at least TWICE what it costs to make a REAL Toyota. And
the government plans to keep throwing an endless supply of FUNNY MONEY at
it.
I've seen the ads. I'll buy a FORD first! Don't tell me that SOMEDAY -
when PIGS FLY you'll build a car worth considering. BUILD IT NOW. For all
the BULLSHIT from Detroit, they could have electric cars on the road TODAY.
NOT 20 years from now, or even next month. All the talk from these assholes
is pure BULLSHIT. You see - it is HARD to make an electric motor that
breaks down all the time so you can sell assloads of PARTS to fix the shit.
Did you ever price out the cost of PARTS for a car? Let's PLAY with the
little shitbox Aveo. (Daewoo) You can buy it for $15,000. BUT if you bought
the parts it would cost $ 97,850. Oh and the range of the cars? GM will
only allow a TEENY TINY battery with a range of 40 miles. There are
batteries that will give at least $150 miles. The car companies could get
together and build the cars with easily removable battery packs. On a trip
you could pull in a service station, they could yank your battery pack, and
replace it with a fully charged pack off the rack. Then recharge the pack
for a customer down the line.
Before the jerkoffs at GM while about that idea. When Henry Ford first
started mass producing his cars, there were almost NO gas stations in
America.With some work these battery packs could be designed to hit 400
miles between charges. Most of the time you just plug it in at night.
The PROBLEM in this is electrical demand.Can we say NUKES????? We are
generating much of our electricity by OIL. Makes NO sense at all. But in
2012 GM *MIGHT* make the Chevy VOLT.
(A really outdated design).
<sigh> Oh well - the American consumer will get it up the ass anyway.
krp
"Scott in SoCal" <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jk4p25hnep7akvsu4...@4ax.com...
> In message <h0i2e1$4j2$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Brent
> <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>just like Nixon promised with amtrack!
>
YEP. He promised to make Amtrak profitable in 2 years. Just like the
Feds promise to have the Post Office turn a profit. Don't worry - they will
"FIX" your healthcare!
TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com
> "Scott in SoCal" <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:jk4p25hnep7akvsu4...@4ax.com...
>
> > In message <h0i2e1$4j...@news.eternal-september.org>, Brent
> > <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>In three years GM will be profitable and the government can sell it off
> >>just like Nixon promised with amtrack!
>
> > Nixon promised that?
>
> YEP. He promised to make Amtrak profitable in 2 years. Just like the
> Feds promise to have the Post Office turn a profit. Don't worry - they will
> "FIX" your healthcare!
Put the government in charge of the desert, and within 10 years you'll
have a shortage of sand.
Only idiots vote for more of government.
Brent
GM will be with us so long as the dollar doesn't collapse and maybe even
if it does. Government is a bottomless pit of money, it will either take
it from people or have the fed print it (which is the same thing as the
printing takes the money via inflation). GM and probably chrysler will
form the amtrak of autos. Ford better be watching their back because GM
was known for lobbying government for regulation to hurt its competition
before (not that others didn't do it), now it is part of the government.
> the CEO - STILL doesn't know how to START a car!
any source for this interesting factoid? :)
> When you have an asshole with a Harvard
> MBA (bean counting) degree who has absolutely NO idea what makes the tin
> MOVE - what do you think we're going to get? MORE OF THE SAME "SHIT" has
> built for the last 40 years. Listen to the GOOF at his "PRESS" conferences,
> when he is asked a simple CAR question - his eyes start to glaze over and he
> gets this dumb, deer in the headlights expression on his face and starts
> going; "Duhhhhhhhhhhhh!" Tell me this, let's forget for a second that GM
> cars have been PURE SHIT. Let's PRETEND that they start building GOOD cars.
> Why buy an ALMOST Toyota for $65,000 when you can buy a REAL Toyota for
> $18,000? The jerk just doesn't GET IT! EVEN IF the GM plants re-tooled to
> make the TOYOTA AN EXACT copy, manufacturing costs AT A MINIMUM would
> require it to cost at least TWICE what it costs to make a REAL Toyota. And
> the government plans to keep throwing an endless supply of FUNNY MONEY at
> it.
GM will now be used as the tool of government so the rulers can force us
to drive what they politically determine we should drive for the good of
society. This is one of the reasons why Ford will be destroyed. The
federal reserve system makes it so that the government always has the
money for all sorts of nonsense, including this. Some people consider it
crazy talk to end the fed, but it's the only way to stop government from
doing whatever it damn well pleases without directly taxing for it.
It doesn't matter if you won't buy a GM car because eventually, that's
all you will be able to buy. every automaker that is left will produce
different versions of the same government designed hunk of crap. Designs
by people who never held a productive job in their lives, but rather,
like Obama, spent their entire careers in government looking to tell
other people what to do.
> I've seen the ads. I'll buy a FORD first! Don't tell me that SOMEDAY -
> when PIGS FLY you'll build a car worth considering. BUILD IT NOW. For all
> the BULLSHIT from Detroit, they could have electric cars on the road TODAY.
> NOT 20 years from now, or even next month. All the talk from these assholes
> is pure BULLSHIT. You see - it is HARD to make an electric motor that
> breaks down all the time so you can sell assloads of PARTS to fix the shit.
Electrics themselves are mostly smoke and mirrors nonsense. The
breakthrough in battery technology hasn't happened yet and the electric
power doesn't come from zero point either. Even the japanese hybrids are
silly when compared to their basic gasoline counterparts. Even at $4/gal
gas they take the lifetime of the car to make back the additional
purchase cost. (provided the battery pack isn't replaced)
> Did you ever price out the cost of PARTS for a car? Let's PLAY with the
> little shitbox Aveo. (Daewoo) You can buy it for $15,000. BUT if you bought
> the parts it would cost $ 97,850.
That's because of the inventory, distribution, etc... The same would be
true of just about any product you can buy if you could even buy all the
parts. And before the computer example is tossed in, go down a level,
and build your own sound cards, motherboards, etc from individually
purchased SMT parts. The reason it's competitive is because each major
component is a finished product. Also if government regulated
electronics like it does cars electronics companies wouldn't be able to
counteract the inflation the way they do.
> Oh and the range of the cars? GM will
> only allow a TEENY TINY battery with a range of 40 miles. There are
> batteries that will give at least $150 miles.
On what planet? the batteries for a 150 miles will weigh more the than
rest of the aveo.
> The car companies could get
> together and build the cars with easily removable battery packs. On a trip
> you could pull in a service station, they could yank your battery pack, and
> replace it with a fully charged pack off the rack. Then recharge the pack
> for a customer down the line.
Really? You want to get someone's crappy battery pack in place of your
good one? You get to the next exchange and they tell you your pack is
crap and refuse to accept it and you're SOL. Lots of people do not take
proper care of their cars and this system will help them at everyone
else's expense.
> Before the jerkoffs at GM while about that idea. When Henry Ford first
> started mass producing his cars, there were almost NO gas stations in
> America.With some work these battery packs could be designed to hit 400
> miles between charges. Most of the time you just plug it in at night.
When parking lots are equiped with outlets and the breakthrough in a
battery technology occurs.
> The PROBLEM in this is electrical demand.Can we say NUKES????? We are
> generating much of our electricity by OIL. Makes NO sense at all. But in
> 2012 GM *MIGHT* make the Chevy VOLT.
> (A really outdated design).
The anti-energy people have a problem with nukes. They have a problem
with everything including wind. They loved wind until it started to
work, now it's a bird killer, it's ugly, and so on. They'll turn on
electric cars the moment the breakthrough in battery techology gets to
the market. Soon after they will be concerned about the toxic battery
chemicals, manufacturing processes, bits of worn rubber from tires,
anything they can think of to continue their attack. It isn't about oil,
or the planet, or anything but simple power. Power to tell other people
how to live.
><sigh> Oh well - the American consumer will get it up the ass anyway.
Until the american people as a whole get a clue.
Brent
but (more) government promises to fix the problems that government
created in the first place. (prime example, healthcare, which got the
way it is because of the tax code, the great society programs, and
regulation)
krp
<TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
message
news:10e84d1a-9aec-4343...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 8, 6:36 am, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Scott in SoCal" <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> messagenews:jk4p25hnep7akvsu4...@4ax.com...
>
> > In message <h0i2e1$4j...@news.eternal-september.org>, Brent
> > <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>In three years GM will be profitable and the government can sell it off
> >>just like Nixon promised with amtrack!
>
> > Nixon promised that?
>
> YEP. He promised to make Amtrak profitable in 2 years. Just like the
> Feds promise to have the Post Office turn a profit. Don't worry - they
> will
> "FIX" your healthcare!
TK> Put the government in charge of the desert, and within 10 years you'll
TK> have a shortage of sand.
` But many folks want them to manage our HEALTH CARE!!!
krp
>>> In three years GM will be profitable and the government can sell it off
>>> just like Nixon promised with amtrack!
>> Yeah right. In 3 years there will be NO General Motors.
> GM will be with us so long as the dollar doesn't collapse and maybe even
> if it does. Government is a bottomless pit of money, it will either take
> it from people or have the fed print it (which is the same thing as the
> printing takes the money via inflation). GM and probably chrysler will
> form the amtrak of autos. Ford better be watching their back because GM
> was known for lobbying government for regulation to hurt its competition
> before (not that others didn't do it), now it is part of the government.
There will be NO American made cars within 5 years. UNLESS Penske can
fix Saturn. There is a 200% chance that GM won't last out 2 years. Chrysler
will be gone by the end of 2009 no matter how many TRILLIONS the government
throws at it. Given money to GM is like dropping that paper money onto a
raging forest fire in the imbecilic hope that it will put it out. Indeed GM
has been known to BRIBE public officials to screw its competition. Buses and
trolley cars. Tucker and the independents. GM and the MAFIA are cousins. The
only difference is that the Mafia won't tolerate MORONS within its
leadership. GM gives birth to them.
krp
>
> Electrics themselves are mostly smoke and mirrors nonsense. The
> breakthrough in battery technology hasn't happened yet and the electric
> power doesn't come from zero point either. Even the japanese hybrids are
> silly when compared to their basic gasoline counterparts. Even at $4/gal
> gas they take the lifetime of the car to make back the additional
> purchase cost. (provided the battery pack isn't replaced)
No the battery is HERE. GM owns it and has it buried. It was developed when
GM had the previous EV. Exxon Mobil bought the company and BURIED it. It
will NEVER see the light of day. GM and Mobil are killing it.
krp
>> Oh and the range of the cars? GM will
>> only allow a TEENY TINY battery with a range of 40 miles. There are
>> batteries that will give at least $150 miles.
> On what planet? the batteries for a 150 miles will weigh more the than
> rest of the aveo.
That is no longer true. While heavy - the power of the new packs are
only about a hudnred pounds. They can be made to slide in and out of gthe
rear of the car.
>> The car companies could get
>> together and build the cars with easily removable battery packs. On a
>> trip
>> you could pull in a service station, they could yank your battery pack,
>> and
>> replace it with a fully charged pack off the rack. Then recharge the pack
>> for a customer down the line.
> Really? You want to get someone's crappy battery pack in place of your
> good one? You get to the next exchange and they tell you your pack is
> crap and refuse to accept it and you're SOL. Lots of people do not take
> proper care of their cars and this system will help them at everyone
> else's expense.
No such thing as a "crappy energy pack." They'll all be essentially new
and must rate full charges.
Matthew Russotto
krp <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>No the battery is HERE. GM owns it and has it buried. It was developed when
>GM had the previous EV. Exxon Mobil bought the company and BURIED it. It
>will NEVER see the light of day. GM and Mobil are killing it.
The Ovonic battery isn't the breakthrough the conspiracy theorists
would like you to believe it is.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
Brent
> news:h0j1j3$oga$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>>> In three years GM will be profitable and the government can sell it off
>>>> just like Nixon promised with amtrack!
>
>>> Yeah right. In 3 years there will be NO General Motors.
>
>> GM will be with us so long as the dollar doesn't collapse and maybe even
>> if it does. Government is a bottomless pit of money, it will either take
>> it from people or have the fed print it (which is the same thing as the
>> printing takes the money via inflation). GM and probably chrysler will
>> form the amtrak of autos. Ford better be watching their back because GM
>> was known for lobbying government for regulation to hurt its competition
>> before (not that others didn't do it), now it is part of the government.
> There will be NO American made cars within 5 years.
The import makes have factories in the US that will continue to function
until the US federal government forces them out of this market. Five
years is a pretty steep time line for that. The government might destroy
Ford in that time period however.
> UNLESS Penske can
> fix Saturn. There is a 200% chance that GM won't last out 2 years. Chrysler
> will be gone by the end of 2009 no matter how many TRILLIONS the government
> throws at it. Given money to GM is like dropping that paper money onto a
> raging forest fire in the imbecilic hope that it will put it out. Indeed GM
> has been known to BRIBE public officials to screw its competition. Buses and
> trolley cars. Tucker and the independents. GM and the MAFIA are cousins. The
> only difference is that the Mafia won't tolerate MORONS within its
> leadership. GM gives birth to them.
Government is fundamentally a mafia. If the stories about GM are just a
little true the government-GM alliance will leave us with only our
choice of politically approved GM cars.
Brent
sounds like BS to me. Automakers don't get along well with oil
companies and never have. It's a myth that they conspire together. It's
more like this:
Automakers: 'we want better fuels for our new engine technology' .
Oil companies: 'screw you, use what we make'.
the idea that they are working as a team to kill battery technology
seems absurd to me. Now, did exxon have thugs visit an inventor in the
middle of the night or buy up a company to kill or control a technology?
possibly. If GM bought a company for battery technology and it never
saw the light of day it's because: A) it didn't work. B) GM management
consists of a bunch of morons. GM has licensed various technology only
not use it while others who licensed it developed it and put it on the
market.
Brent
> news:h0j1j3$oga$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>> Oh and the range of the cars? GM will
>>> only allow a TEENY TINY battery with a range of 40 miles. There are
>>> batteries that will give at least $150 miles.
>
>> On what planet? the batteries for a 150 miles will weigh more the than
>> rest of the aveo.
>
> That is no longer true. While heavy - the power of the new packs are
> only about a hudnred pounds. They can be made to slide in and out of gthe
> rear of the car.
Cite? You either missed some critical detail or are just making it up.
>>> The car companies could get
>>> together and build the cars with easily removable battery packs. On a
>>> trip
>>> you could pull in a service station, they could yank your battery pack,
>>> and
>>> replace it with a fully charged pack off the rack. Then recharge the pack
>>> for a customer down the line.
>> Really? You want to get someone's crappy battery pack in place of your
>> good one? You get to the next exchange and they tell you your pack is
>> crap and refuse to accept it and you're SOL. Lots of people do not take
>> proper care of their cars and this system will help them at everyone
>> else's expense.
>
> No such thing as a "crappy energy pack." They'll all be essentially new
> and must rate full charges.
LOL. Today's best battery technology is rather fickle about being
treated correctly to get proper life. Now a lot of that can be idiot
proofed out but some of it can't. Then there's your redneck racers and
rice-boys out there who will do something they think will make their
cars go faster and end up damaging the pack. They revert it and figure
out a way to get back into the exchange program... guess what? you just
drew the ricer battery pack and 15 miles later you're stuck on the side
of the road and don't have a extension cord long enough.
krp
"Matthew Russotto" <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:dZWdnbxNr5mPt7DX...@speakeasy.net...
> In article <gL9Xl.1385$u86....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> krp <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>No the battery is HERE. GM owns it and has it buried. It was developed
>>when
>>GM had the previous EV. Exxon Mobil bought the company and BURIED it. It
>>will NEVER see the light of day. GM and Mobil are killing it.
>
> The Ovonic battery isn't the breakthrough the conspiracy theorists
> would like you to believe it is.
No, that isn't the battery I was speaking of. When the GM - EV program
was running the original company was developing a completely NEW battery.
That's when Mobil and GM bought it out and CLOSED the operation. THAT
battery will NEVER see the light of day.
krp
>>>>> In three years GM will be profitable and the government can sell it
>>>>> off
>>>>> just like Nixon promised with amtrack!
>>
>>>> Yeah right. In 3 years there will be NO General Motors.
>>
>>> GM will be with us so long as the dollar doesn't collapse and maybe even
>>> if it does. Government is a bottomless pit of money, it will either take
>>> it from people or have the fed print it (which is the same thing as the
>>> printing takes the money via inflation). GM and probably chrysler will
>>> form the amtrak of autos. Ford better be watching their back because GM
>>> was known for lobbying government for regulation to hurt its competition
>>> before (not that others didn't do it), now it is part of the government.
>
>> There will be NO American made cars within 5 years.
>
> The import makes have factories in the US that will continue to function
> until the US federal government forces them out of this market. Five
> years is a pretty steep time line for that. The government might destroy
> Ford in that time period however.
The next 10 years will be very interesting. By the time this goes to
ints conclusion, WE will be sneaking into Mexico for the GOOD LIFE.
>
> UNLESS Penske can
>> fix Saturn. There is a 200% chance that GM won't last out 2 years.
>> Chrysler
>> will be gone by the end of 2009 no matter how many TRILLIONS the
>> government
>> throws at it. Given money to GM is like dropping that paper money onto a
>> raging forest fire in the imbecilic hope that it will put it out. Indeed
>> GM
>> has been known to BRIBE public officials to screw its competition. Buses
>> and
>> trolley cars. Tucker and the independents. GM and the MAFIA are cousins.
>> The
>> only difference is that the Mafia won't tolerate MORONS within its
>> leadership. GM gives birth to them.
> Government is fundamentally a mafia. If the stories about GM are just a
> little true the government-GM alliance will leave us with only our
> choice of politically approved GM cars.
Chrysler will totally fail by the end of this year. Gm will not last
through 2010.
\
krp
> On 2009-06-08, krp <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Brent" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:h0j1j3$oga$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> Electrics themselves are mostly smoke and mirrors nonsense. The
>>> breakthrough in battery technology hasn't happened yet and the electric
>>> power doesn't come from zero point either. Even the japanese hybrids are
>>> silly when compared to their basic gasoline counterparts. Even at $4/gal
>>> gas they take the lifetime of the car to make back the additional
>>> purchase cost. (provided the battery pack isn't replaced)
>>
>>
>> No the battery is HERE. GM owns it and has it buried. It was developed
>> when
>> GM had the previous EV. Exxon Mobil bought the company and BURIED it. It
>> will NEVER see the light of day. GM and Mobil are killing it.
>
> sounds like BS to me. Automakers don't get along well with oil
> companies and never have. It's a myth that they conspire together. It's
> more like this:
Hate to tell you - it was GM and BIG OIL that ended the electric
streetcars and Trolley Buses. The car makers have had the ability to make 60
MPG cars for decades. The car companies, tire companies, and oil companies
have been sleeping together since Henry Ford was a KID.
> Automakers: 'we want better fuels for our new engine technology' .
> Oil companies: 'screw you, use what we make'.
Yeah right.
> the idea that they are working as a team to kill battery technology
> seems absurd to me. Now, did exxon have thugs visit an inventor in the
> middle of the night or buy up a company to kill or control a technology?
> possibly. If GM bought a company for battery technology and it never
> saw the light of day it's because: A) it didn't work. B) GM management
> consists of a bunch of morons. GM has licensed various technology only
> not use it while others who licensed it developed it and put it on the
> market.
Mobil bought the company.
krp
The design that was being talked about at the end of the GM - "EV"
program was a battery platform that would slide out of the rear of the car.
Sort of like batteries connect in a cell phone. The service stations bring a
little sled up to the rear of the car. They slide the depleted battery out
onto one shelf, and then slide the new one from the other. It then goes
inside to a rack and starts charging. I suspect at some time that can all be
automated. Just pull into a stall and slide your credit card and you're back
on the road.
Brent
>
> "Brent" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:h0javj$6sn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 2009-06-08, krp <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h0j1j3$oga$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> Electrics themselves are mostly smoke and mirrors nonsense. The
>>>> breakthrough in battery technology hasn't happened yet and the electric
>>>> power doesn't come from zero point either. Even the japanese hybrids are
>>>> silly when compared to their basic gasoline counterparts. Even at $4/gal
>>>> gas they take the lifetime of the car to make back the additional
>>>> purchase cost. (provided the battery pack isn't replaced)
>>>
>>>
>>> No the battery is HERE. GM owns it and has it buried. It was developed
>>> when
>>> GM had the previous EV. Exxon Mobil bought the company and BURIED it. It
>>> will NEVER see the light of day. GM and Mobil are killing it.
>>
>> sounds like BS to me. Automakers don't get along well with oil
>> companies and never have. It's a myth that they conspire together. It's
>> more like this:
> Hate to tell you - it was GM and BIG OIL that ended the electric
> streetcars and Trolley Buses.
That's a new twist. The traditional story was it was GM alone in their
effort to sell buses.
> The car makers have had the ability to make 60
> MPG cars for decades. The car companies, tire companies, and oil companies
> have been sleeping together since Henry Ford was a KID.
Oh they can go a lot higher than 60mpg, except the 'car' begins to look
a lot like a bicycle.
>> Automakers: 'we want better fuels for our new engine technology' .
>> Oil companies: 'screw you, use what we make'.
> Yeah right.
Might do you some good to actually look into it. I heard these
conspiracies that you are rattling off before and when I looked into
them I found that oil companies and automakers don't get a long. If oil
companies and automakers were in a conspiracy, why did the oil companies
manipulate supply to the point where gasoline was over $4/gal and people
stopped buying the former big three's most profitable vehicles? Kinda
throws the monkey into the wrench for ya doesn't it?
>> the idea that they are working as a team to kill battery technology
>> seems absurd to me. Now, did exxon have thugs visit an inventor in the
>> middle of the night or buy up a company to kill or control a technology?
>> possibly. If GM bought a company for battery technology and it never
>> saw the light of day it's because: A) it didn't work. B) GM management
>> consists of a bunch of morons. GM has licensed various technology only
>> not use it while others who licensed it developed it and put it on the
>> market.
> Mobil bought the company.
Well, I'll await some actual cites.
Brent
Yes, I know the concept. It works well until you consider human nature.
It counts on everyone actually taking care of their vehicles. Billy
Riceboy has recently purchased some 'performance' chips for his car off
of ebay. Seems every battery pack he gets after installing them doesn't
last very long. But he just keeps trading them in... figures it's
because his car is sucking more juice because of his 'power' mods.
Trouble is, the next guy who gets the batteries Billy used don't seem
to recover. Bob's 4 door sedan suddenly develops odd electronic problems
after having used a pack that was in Billy's car. Seems some of the
protective circuits in the battery pack failed.
Batteries have to be treated right to last a long time. Trading them in
willy-nilly for someone else's is foolish. It would be like taking the
engine out of your present car and getting some used engine at random to
put in. You want the engine you took care of and know is good, not some
random engine that may be boat-anchor.
DanKMTB
> On 2009-06-08, krp <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:h0jb8c$6sn$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> On 2009-06-08, krp <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
LiPo batteries are fickle. LiFePo4, also known as A123, really are
not. High number of life cycles, awesome discharge rates, and they
don't care much about storage voltage, capacity used between charges,
temps, etc. They're not as light as LiPo, but they're a hell of a lot
better than SLA's. Oddly enough, I find if you really want to see the
direction battery technology is going R/C is a good place to look.
Since I fly RC planes (mostly for AP) I see some really cool battery
technology. I went back to LiPo from LiFePo4 for my flying to save
every last oz, but the LiFePo4 tech is really impressive. Cheap it
isn't, but give it a few years.
Hachiroku ハチロク
I hate it when someone does the math...
And, you don't have your friend coo...er, KEEP *your* books, do you?!
krp
>>>>> Electrics themselves are mostly smoke and mirrors nonsense. The
>>>>> breakthrough in battery technology hasn't happened yet and the
>>>>> electric
>>>>> power doesn't come from zero point either. Even the japanese hybrids
>>>>> are
>>>>> silly when compared to their basic gasoline counterparts. Even at
>>>>> $4/gal
>>>>> gas they take the lifetime of the car to make back the additional
>>>>> purchase cost. (provided the battery pack isn't replaced)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No the battery is HERE. GM owns it and has it buried. It was developed
>>>> when
>>>> GM had the previous EV. Exxon Mobil bought the company and BURIED it.
>>>> It
>>>> will NEVER see the light of day. GM and Mobil are killing it.
>>>
>>> sounds like BS to me. Automakers don't get along well with oil
>>> companies and never have. It's a myth that they conspire together. It's
>>> more like this:
>> Hate to tell you - it was GM and BIG OIL that ended the electric
>> streetcars and Trolley Buses.
> That's a new twist. The traditional story was it was GM alone in their
> effort to sell buses.
GM's agenda was to sell CARS - the bus deal was merely comoflage. GM and
BIG OIL wanted to destroy public transportation. To GM they could sell
assloads of cars, and the oil companies, shitloads of oil products. The WAR
was in the 50's. Figue out how much revenue Standard oil got from one
streetcar? ZIP. Now take the passengers in one trolley. Say 50 at a crack.
And now they are in 50 cars guggling gas to the tune of 8 MPG, plus oil
changes. And we have PROFITS..
>> The car makers have had the ability to make 60
>> MPG cars for decades. The car companies, tire companies, and oil
>> companies
>> have been sleeping together since Henry Ford was a KID.
> Oh they can go a lot higher than 60mpg, except the 'car' begins to look
> a lot like a bicycle.
No - I am speaking of a standard sized sedan the size of today's Chevy
Impala. Of course it would not do 120 MPH. But it could do 100. And it
wouldn't be real quick getting to 100. But they CAN make a comfortable
sedan that uses little gas. With some determination they could get rid of
combustion engines entirely. Put a grid in the ground and have cars driven
by computers. Enter the destination and watch TV. No more wrecks.
>>> Automakers: 'we want better fuels for our new engine technology' .
>>> Oil companies: 'screw you, use what we make'.
>> Yeah right.
> Might do you some good to actually look into it. I heard these
> conspiracies that you are rattling off before and when I looked into
> them I found that oil companies and automakers don't get a long. If oil
> companies and automakers were in a conspiracy, why did the oil companies
> manipulate supply to the point where gasoline was over $4/gal and people
> stopped buying the former big three's most profitable vehicles? Kinda
> throws the monkey into the wrench for ya doesn't it?
Look, I worked my way through College working for Texaco. The $4 a
gallon price for gas is the result of "speculators" in the commodities
market screwing with the system. Demand is WAY WAY down, but market forces
are being totally ignored. The "LAW" of supply and demand has NEVER worked
with oil. WHY? Because they have a captive market. They KNOW they can fukk
you as hard as they can and you'll come back for MORE. "SCREW ME PLEASE -
MISTER BIG OIL." The only question is how FAR up the ass the sissy American
consumer is willing to take it? The WIMPS in Europe have been willing to
shell out $6 a gallon for YEARS. And BEG for more. They LOVE it when oil
starts pile-driving their asses.
>>> the idea that they are working as a team to kill battery technology
>>> seems absurd to me. Now, did exxon have thugs visit an inventor in the
>>> middle of the night or buy up a company to kill or control a technology?
>>> possibly. If GM bought a company for battery technology and it never
>>> saw the light of day it's because: A) it didn't work. B) GM management
>>> consists of a bunch of morons. GM has licensed various technology only
>>> not use it while others who licensed it developed it and put it on the
>>> market.
>
>> Mobil bought the company.
> Well, I'll await some actual cites.
Did you ever see the documentary on the GM EV? "WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC
CAR"
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
"The film also showed that the company who had supplied batteries for EV-1
had been suppressed from announcing the improved batteries that can double
the range of EV-1, and General Motors had sold the supplier's majority
control share to an oil company. " (MOBIL)
http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/
I could go ON and ON. Also factor in that the OILMEN in the Bush
administration HELPED outlaw the car. BIG OIL - "OWNS" Congress. BOTH sides
of the aisle.
krp
Nope that is heads up the ass thinking. The owner/driver really doesn't
get to abuse the batteries.
> Billy Riceboy has recently purchased some 'performance' chips for his
> car off
> of ebay. Seems every battery pack he gets after installing them doesn't
> last very long. But he just keeps trading them in... figures it's
> because his car is sucking more juice because of his 'power' mods.
> Trouble is, the next guy who gets the batteries Billy used don't seem
> to recover. Bob's 4 door sedan suddenly develops odd electronic problems
> after having used a pack that was in Billy's car. Seems some of the
> protective circuits in the battery pack failed.
REALLY? What ELECTRIC CAR is BILLY driving?
> Batteries have to be treated right to last a long time. Trading them in
> willy-nilly for someone else's is foolish. It would be like taking the
> engine out of your present car and getting some used engine at random to
> put in. You want the engine you took care of and know is good, not some
> random engine that may be boat-anchor.
The engine stays, you just go "fill up" your battery at the local
service station. HOWEVER - do you think it is impossible for technology to
prevent BILLY HOT ROD from tampering with the car? Sure he MIGHT do it - IF
he always charges his batteries himself. HOWEVER - as part of the battery
replacement process the car is hooked up to the station's computers. If the
car should get 200 miles on a charge and little Billy HOT ROD is only
getting 40 miles. They can check the circuit and see his little HOT ROD mods
and charge in full price for a new battery. They are also going to tell it
is a BAD battery.
COME ON - you are looking to invent problems. How many BILLY HOT RODS do you
think there are?
cavedweller
>
> > He's probably like my friend who proposed it to me six months
> > ago....an accountant
>
> I hate it when someone does the math...
>
> And, you don't have your friend coo...er, KEEP *your* books, do you?!
No way.
Brent
>> That's a new twist. The traditional story was it was GM alone in their
>> effort to sell buses.
> GM's agenda was to sell CARS - the bus deal was merely comoflage. GM and
> BIG OIL wanted to destroy public transportation. To GM they could sell
> assloads of cars, and the oil companies, shitloads of oil products. The WAR
> was in the 50's. Figue out how much revenue Standard oil got from one
> streetcar? ZIP. Now take the passengers in one trolley. Say 50 at a crack.
> And now they are in 50 cars guggling gas to the tune of 8 MPG, plus oil
> changes. And we have PROFITS..
You're just spewing one urban legend after another. Besides 'who framed
rodger rabbit' where do you have any sort of support for this?
The reality is that privately owned mass transit suffered from huge tax
burdens from government. For instance, in order to operate street cars a
company would be forced to maintain the street. This worked fine until
affordable automobiles came along. Now the street car companies had to
build the roads for the cars and suffer the loss of ridership. They also
had to deal with very expensive and restrictive union contracts and so
on. Much like the domestic auto manufacturers today. It doesn't take
much to kill a company when they are so burdened. A new affordable
technology like the automobile was more than enough on its own.
The history of oil companies and automakers being at odds over fuel
types and quality I've read in a couple different places including
SAE's AE publication.
>>> The car makers have had the ability to make 60
>>> MPG cars for decades. The car companies, tire companies, and oil
>>> companies
>>> have been sleeping together since Henry Ford was a KID.
>> Oh they can go a lot higher than 60mpg, except the 'car' begins to look
>> a lot like a bicycle.
> No - I am speaking of a standard sized sedan the size of today's Chevy
> Impala. Of course it would not do 120 MPH. But it could do 100. And it
> wouldn't be real quick getting to 100. But they CAN make a comfortable
> sedan that uses little gas. With some determination they could get rid of
> combustion engines entirely. Put a grid in the ground and have cars driven
> by computers. Enter the destination and watch TV. No more wrecks.
Again no cites. Just more urban legend. If you want 'a lot higher than
60mpg' (which I read as 80+) you're looking at something that isn't a
car by anyone's standards.
>>>> Automakers: 'we want better fuels for our new engine technology' .
>>>> Oil companies: 'screw you, use what we make'.
>>> Yeah right.
>> Might do you some good to actually look into it. I heard these
>> conspiracies that you are rattling off before and when I looked into
>> them I found that oil companies and automakers don't get a long. If oil
>> companies and automakers were in a conspiracy, why did the oil companies
>> manipulate supply to the point where gasoline was over $4/gal and people
>> stopped buying the former big three's most profitable vehicles? Kinda
>> throws the monkey into the wrench for ya doesn't it?
> Look, I worked my way through College working for Texaco.
That's nice.
> The $4 a
> gallon price for gas is the result of "speculators" in the commodities
> market screwing with the system.
That's what your government tells you. Reality is different. Gasoline
hit $4/gal because of government's wars, foreign policy, regulation that
discourages (effectively prevents) new competition, etc and so on.
Speculators go both ways too ya know.
> Demand is WAY WAY down, but market forces
> are being totally ignored. The "LAW" of supply and demand has NEVER worked
> with oil. WHY? Because they have a captive market. They KNOW they can fukk
> you as hard as they can and you'll come back for MORE. "SCREW ME PLEASE -
> MISTER BIG OIL." The only question is how FAR up the ass the sissy American
> consumer is willing to take it? The WIMPS in Europe have been willing to
> shell out $6 a gallon for YEARS. And BEG for more. They LOVE it when oil
> starts pile-driving their asses.
Why is the market captive? Government. Government controls who drills
where. Government controls who gets to have a refinery where. Government
foreign policy makes middle east oil cheap for the favored companies who
can get it over there. The whole mess in the middle east as far as the
USA is concerned starts with intervention in Iran for the sake of oil
companies back in the 1950s.
>>> Mobil bought the company.
>
>> Well, I'll await some actual cites.
>
> Did you ever see the documentary on the GM EV? "WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC
> CAR"
I try not to watch crap that attempts to turn the age old process of
destroying prototype and pilot run vehicles into a conspiracy against
electric cars. That's what happens to them. Automakers have been doing
that since the 1950s at least. Do you know why so many of those GM
'dream cars' survived? Because the guy GM contracted to crush them hid
them for 40 years instead.
BTW, government often demands that the cars be crushed. You see,
anything that doesn't meet government's regulations or doesn't have
the taxes paid on it has to be destroyed once the testing program is
over. Before the regulation got massive, such as the 1960s chrysler
turbine cars, it was just the taxes. Someone could easily turn the
destruction of the turbine cars into a conspiracy too. It followed the
same path as the GM EV-1.
Even worse is turning H2 into a conspiracy. Do the energy balance. H2
from water is just a difficult and inefficent battery. Most H2, if the
storage issues are worked out, would have come from products of big
oil because that's the cheapest way to make it.
> http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
>
> "The film also showed that the company who had supplied batteries for EV-1
> had been suppressed from announcing the improved batteries that can double
> the range of EV-1, and General Motors had sold the supplier's majority
> control share to an oil company. " (MOBIL)
> http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/
I got something for you to work on. Did you know that big oil funds
environmental groups? See those groups push for regulation that keeps
big oil's market protected from 'small' oil, that is any new start up
companies.... but I digress.
The EV-1 Was hardly the kind of vehicle that most people would buy in
the USA. Sure some people would buy it, but it's a pretty niche market
and niche markets can make noise. And the argument that people could use
a limited range electric for their daily commute is silly because most
people do need greater range now and then but cannot afford different
vehicles for different tasks. This is in part why CAFE led to the SUV
craze. Some people needed the extra capacity some times and it was
regulated out of passenger cars.
Now if government would stop taxing people to death and car insurance
(also highly government regulated) would go to a driver model instead of
a per-car model, then maybe more people could afford to have multiple
cars for multiple purposes. But that means our rulers giving up some
control and more importantly stealing less from us.
> I could go ON and ON. Also factor in that the OILMEN in the Bush
> administration HELPED outlaw the car. BIG OIL - "OWNS" Congress. BOTH sides
> of the aisle.
outlaw the car? Electric cars aren't outlawed anywhere. Although people
who operate them might get government agents visiting. See, government
wants money and considers things like DITY bio-fuel and electric powered
cars to be tax evasion.
The real evil is the state, government. It's the one that can use
violence, it's the one that can surpress competition, it's the one that
can tax and outlaw technologies, it has the power. Private corporations
can't do anything if the state is not allowed those powers. Until the
american people figure this out and end their love of the state and
empowering it those with the most influence over the state will rule
over those who don't.
And the 'bush did it'... lol. Al Gore is the biggest oil man in
government in the last 20 years. He gave occidental a sweetheart deal
that made tea-pot dome look like slipping a metermaid a $10 bill to
avoid a parking ticket. (guess who will make the big bucks from
cap-and-trade? If you said Al Gore, you're correct) They are all a bunch
of whores.
And lastly the 'bought up patents'... that's why IP laws exist. For the
state to give protection to favored companies. It's funny the proposed
patent reforms will make it even more so that the only people who can
afford to get and defend patents will be large companies.
Brent
>> Yes, I know the concept. It works well until you consider human nature.
>> It counts on everyone actually taking care of their vehicles.
>
> Nope that is heads up the ass thinking. The owner/driver really doesn't
> get to abuse the batteries.
He has them under his control so he does get to abuse them. He has the
vehicle under his control which he can abuse/modify as well.
>> Billy Riceboy has recently purchased some 'performance' chips for his
>> car off
>> of ebay. Seems every battery pack he gets after installing them doesn't
>> last very long. But he just keeps trading them in... figures it's
>> because his car is sucking more juice because of his 'power' mods.
>> Trouble is, the next guy who gets the batteries Billy used don't seem
>> to recover. Bob's 4 door sedan suddenly develops odd electronic problems
>> after having used a pack that was in Billy's car. Seems some of the
>> protective circuits in the battery pack failed.
> REALLY? What ELECTRIC CAR is BILLY driving?
I take it you've never built an electric or hybrid car. Try it some
time. There are all sorts of things one can do. It wouldn't be all that
much different than what people already do with the engine management
systems on their present vehicles or what they do with their computers.
>> Batteries have to be treated right to last a long time. Trading them in
>> willy-nilly for someone else's is foolish. It would be like taking the
>> engine out of your present car and getting some used engine at random to
>> put in. You want the engine you took care of and know is good, not some
>> random engine that may be boat-anchor.
> The engine stays, you just go "fill up" your battery at the local
> service station. HOWEVER - do you think it is impossible for technology to
> prevent BILLY HOT ROD from tampering with the car?
Technology can't prevent such a thing. It can Try, but it will always
ultimately FAIL.
> Sure he MIGHT do it - IF
> he always charges his batteries himself. HOWEVER - as part of the battery
> replacement process the car is hooked up to the station's computers. If the
> car should get 200 miles on a charge and little Billy HOT ROD is only
> getting 40 miles. They can check the circuit and see his little HOT ROD mods
> and charge in full price for a new battery. They are also going to tell it
> is a BAD battery.
Yeah, like OBD2 detects that the catalysts have been hollowed out or
otherwise messed with. LOL. People figured out how to get around that a
few hours after the first OBD2 vehicles were sold if not before.
> COME ON - you are looking to invent problems. How many BILLY HOT RODS do you
> think there are?
Enough that I wouldn't trade in a piece of $1500+ hardware.
Brent
>>It doesn't take
>>much to kill a company when they are so burdened. A new affordable
>>technology like the automobile was more than enough on its own.
> Not quite. The personal automobile market was effectively saturated by
> the 1920s - everyone who wanted a car at that time already had one,
> and sales were slumping. Alfred P. Sloan was desperate to find new
> markets, and came up with several successful schemes to do so,
> including "planned obsolescence." Back then, something like 90% of
> trips were taken by rail, particularly electric traction, so he and
> his co-conspirators set out to destroy this competition and generate
> more demand for automobile products.
> Don't forget GM was taken to court over this issue and found to be in
> violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
How does one 'destroy' their competition? Either you have to buy them,
which means you're already winning, or use government. If 'sales were
slumping', and the market 'saturated' in the 1920s, and most trips were
by rail, then the former seems unlikely.
Passenger rail was dying on its own by the 1950s. But in order to retain
their freight services the rail companies were forced by government to
maintain passenger service.
I don't doubt there were some instances where an auto company or an oil
company used government to destroy a rail or street car or bus line, but
ultimately then that problem is the state which prevents free market
competition. Of the market choices that did exist people overwhelmingly
chose the automobile.
TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com
> <TedKennedyMurderedHisPregnantMistress.dwp...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
> messagenews:10e84d1a-9aec-4343...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
That seems to support my theory that the average American is getting
dumber, not smarter.
TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com
> On 2009-06-08, TedKennedyMurderedHisPregnantMistress.dwp...@spamgourmet.com <TedKennedyMurderedHisPregnantMistress.dwp...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 6:36 am, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> "Scott in SoCal" <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:jk4p25hnep7akvsu4...@4ax.com...
>
> >> > In message <h0i2e1$4j...@news.eternal-september.org>, Brent
> >> > <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>In three years GM will be profitable and the government can sell it off
> >> >>just like Nixon promised with amtrack!
>
> >> > Nixon promised that?
>
> >> YEP. He promised to make Amtrak profitable in 2 years. Just like the
> >> Feds promise to have the Post Office turn a profit. Don't worry - they will
> >> "FIX" your healthcare!
>
>
>
> but (more) government promises to fix the problems that government
> created in the first place. (prime example, healthcare, which got the
> way it is because of the tax code, the great society programs, and
> regulation)
Ah well, at least it will get easier to tax when all of the ill-
educated Americans are on the gubment's payroll.
Hachiroku ハチロク
TedKennedyMurderedHisPregnantMistress.dwpj65 wrote:
>> YEP. He promised to make Amtrak profitable in 2 years. Just like the
>> Feds promise to have the Post Office turn a profit. Don't worry - they will
>> "FIX" your healthcare!
>
> Put the government in charge of the desert, and within 10 years you'll
> have a shortage of sand.
>
> Only idiots vote for more of government.
There sure are a lot of them around...
BTW, what makes you think she was pregnant?
Hachiroku ハチロク
>
> <TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
> message
> news:10e84d1a-9aec-4343...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 8, 6:36 am, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Scott in SoCal" <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:jk4p25hnep7akvsu4...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > In message <h0i2e1$4j...@news.eternal-september.org>, Brent
>> > <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>In three years GM will be profitable and the government can sell it off
>> >>just like Nixon promised with amtrack!
>>
>> > Nixon promised that?
>>
>> YEP. He promised to make Amtrak profitable in 2 years. Just like the
>> Feds promise to have the Post Office turn a profit. Don't worry - they
>> will
>> "FIX" your healthcare!
>
> TK> Put the government in charge of the desert, and within 10 years you'll
> TK> have a shortage of sand.
>
> ` But many folks want them to manage our HEALTH CARE!!!
They can't run a railroad, or the healthcare system they already run, and
people want MORE of this efficiency? RIGHT!
Hachiroku ハチロク
krp
>>> That's a new twist. The traditional story was it was GM alone in their
>>> effort to sell buses.
>
>> GM's agenda was to sell CARS - the bus deal was merely comoflage. GM
>> and
>> BIG OIL wanted to destroy public transportation. To GM they could sell
>> assloads of cars, and the oil companies, shitloads of oil products. The
>> WAR
>> was in the 50's. Figue out how much revenue Standard oil got from one
>> streetcar? ZIP. Now take the passengers in one trolley. Say 50 at a
>> crack.
>> And now they are in 50 cars guggling gas to the tune of 8 MPG, plus oil
>> changes. And we have PROFITS..
>
> You're just spewing one urban legend after another.
If that belief makes you feel better. Give us YOUR version of what
streetcars and trolley buses went away.
krp
"Scott in SoCal" <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54rs25t7ebrfv5gko...@4ax.com...
> In message <h0lnp7$o6l$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Brent
> <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-06-09, krp <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> That's a new twist. The traditional story was it was GM alone in their
>>>> effort to sell buses.
>>
>>> GM's agenda was to sell CARS - the bus deal was merely comoflage. GM
>>> and
>>> BIG OIL wanted to destroy public transportation. To GM they could sell
>>> assloads of cars, and the oil companies, shitloads of oil products. The
>>> WAR
>>> was in the 50's. Figue out how much revenue Standard oil got from one
>>> streetcar? ZIP. Now take the passengers in one trolley. Say 50 at a
>>> crack.
>>> And now they are in 50 cars guggling gas to the tune of 8 MPG, plus oil
>>> changes. And we have PROFITS..
>>
>>You're just spewing one urban legend after another. Besides 'who framed
>>rodger rabbit' where do you have any sort of support for this?
>
>
>>The reality is that privately owned mass transit suffered from huge tax
>>burdens from government. For instance, in order to operate street cars a
>>company would be forced to maintain the street.
>
>
>>It doesn't take
>>much to kill a company when they are so burdened. A new affordable
>>technology like the automobile was more than enough on its own.
>
> the 1920s - everyone who wanted a car at that time already had one,
> and sales were slumping. Alfred P. Sloan was desperate to find new
> markets, and came up with several successful schemes to do so,
> including "planned obsolescence." Back then, something like 90% of
> trips were taken by rail, particularly electric traction, so he and
> his co-conspirators set out to destroy this competition and generate
> more demand for automobile products.
I decided not to respond to the theater of the ABSURD that the
automobile was "NEW TECHNOLOGY" in the 1950's, I was laughing so hard I
nearly pissed myself. The autombile was "NEW TECHNOLOGY" in the 1890's. Not
1959!
> Don't forget GM was taken to court over this issue and found to be in
> violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Why be bothered by FACTS? The guy has his own alternate reality.
krp
> On 2009-06-09, Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>It doesn't take
>>>much to kill a company when they are so burdened. A new affordable
>>>technology like the automobile was more than enough on its own.
>
>> Not quite. The personal automobile market was effectively saturated by
>> the 1920s - everyone who wanted a car at that time already had one,
>> and sales were slumping. Alfred P. Sloan was desperate to find new
>> markets, and came up with several successful schemes to do so,
>> including "planned obsolescence." Back then, something like 90% of
>> trips were taken by rail, particularly electric traction, so he and
>> his co-conspirators set out to destroy this competition and generate
>> more demand for automobile products.
>
>> Don't forget GM was taken to court over this issue and found to be in
>> violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
>
> How does one 'destroy' their competition? Either you have to buy them,
> which means you're already winning, or use government. If 'sales were
> slumping', and the market 'saturated' in the 1920s, and most trips were
> by rail, then the former seems unlikely.
How? You mount campaigns against them Such as planting FALSE news
stories of the dangers from them. How the overhead electrical wirfes were
making people "STERILE." You really are a horse's ass Brent. People took
trains because the roads were poor. As bad as the rails were it was better.
And going into the 50's automatic transmissions were rare and power brakes
and steering even more rare. A drive from C hicaho to LA in a CAR could take
2 weeks. 1 week by train. When airplanes came in, hours. In a car you were
DEAD by the time you got there.
> Passenger rail was dying on its own by the 1950s. But in order to retain
> their freight services the rail companies were forced by government to
> maintain passenger service.
Apples and oranges. Passenger rail had airplanes to contend with and
ANCIENT poorly maintained rails. Igt tooks a TRAIL a WEEK to get from
Chicago to Los Angeles in 1957. It took an airplane 6 HOURS. PLUS with
government subsidies a plane tickey cost HALF what it took to take the
train. Given the deplorable condition of the rails, you were slapped around
and bounced in the poorly air conditioned cars. Again VERY aged.
> I don't doubt there were some instances where an auto company or an oil
> company used government to destroy a rail or street car or bus line, but
> ultimately then that problem is the state which prevents free market
> competition. Of the market choices that did exist people overwhelmingly
> chose the automobile.
Maybe you need to look at the things GM did to the independent
automakers. Hudson, Nash, Studebaker, Tucker, Packard, Kaiser, Willys, and
others. Blocking access to steel. Tires. Machining equipment. The
independents had to pay TWICE what GM did for steel WHEN they could get it.
Not to mention constant litigation. Promoting labor problems.
krp
<TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
message
news:8c4a2422-094f-4028...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
TK> That seems to support my theory that the average American is getting
TK> dumber, not smarter.
I have a theory on this. Every species DNA has a natural expiration
date. The dinosaurs had theirs run out. With what I am seeing in people
today, I think nature is telling us "TIME'S UP!!!!!"
krp
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
That's why I believe that the Human DNA sequence has reached its
expiration date.
Vic Smith
Cheaper to maintain a rubber-tired gas/diesel engine bus than
tracks/wires all over the place.
It ain't rocket science.
--Vic
Brent
> I decided not to respond to the theater of the ABSURD that the
> automobile was "NEW TECHNOLOGY" in the 1950's, I was laughing so hard I
> nearly pissed myself. The autombile was "NEW TECHNOLOGY" in the 1890's. Not
> 1959!
That's not what I wrote. I wrote that street cars suffered from new
affordable technology and did not put a date on it. If you had a clue
you would have known that spoke of the 1920s. Which is when the
automobiles were the new AFFORDABLE technology.
> Why be bothered by FACTS? The guy has his own alternate reality.
Like the one you're trying to create above. No wonder you're in a 20
year flame war.
Brent
> news:h0lu0u$cf4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 2009-06-09, Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>It doesn't take
>>>>much to kill a company when they are so burdened. A new affordable
>>>>technology like the automobile was more than enough on its own.
>>
>>> Not quite. The personal automobile market was effectively saturated by
>>> the 1920s - everyone who wanted a car at that time already had one,
>>> and sales were slumping. Alfred P. Sloan was desperate to find new
>>> markets, and came up with several successful schemes to do so,
>>> including "planned obsolescence." Back then, something like 90% of
>>> trips were taken by rail, particularly electric traction, so he and
>>> his co-conspirators set out to destroy this competition and generate
>>> more demand for automobile products.
>>
>>> Don't forget GM was taken to court over this issue and found to be in
>>> violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
>>
>> How does one 'destroy' their competition? Either you have to buy them,
>> which means you're already winning, or use government. If 'sales were
>> slumping', and the market 'saturated' in the 1920s, and most trips were
>> by rail, then the former seems unlikely.
> How? You mount campaigns against them Such as planting FALSE news
> stories of the dangers from them. How the overhead electrical wirfes were
> making people "STERILE."
Edison did that sort of thing with AC too... Didn't help his DC systems
much in the long run.
> You really are a horse's ass Brent.
I see that you've run out of material so now you're just making stuff up
and name calling. Cute. Why don't you go back to your 20 year flame
war?
> People took
> trains because the roads were poor. As bad as the rails were it was better.
> And going into the 50's automatic transmissions were rare and power brakes
> and steering even more rare. A drive from C hicaho to LA in a CAR could take
> 2 weeks. 1 week by train. When airplanes came in, hours. In a car you were
> DEAD by the time you got there.
LOL. talk about creating your own reality. ATs were rare in the 1940s,
not the 1950s. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_transmission Your description of
the roads is for the 1920s...
>> Passenger rail was dying on its own by the 1950s. But in order to retain
>> their freight services the rail companies were forced by government to
>> maintain passenger service.
> Apples and oranges. Passenger rail had airplanes to contend with and
> ANCIENT poorly maintained rails. Igt tooks a TRAIL a WEEK to get from
> Chicago to Los Angeles in 1957. It took an airplane 6 HOURS. PLUS with
> government subsidies a plane tickey cost HALF what it took to take the
> train. Given the deplorable condition of the rails, you were slapped around
> and bounced in the poorly air conditioned cars. Again VERY aged.
Flying was expensive in the 1950s. Ordinary people did not fly and it
didn't cost less than a train ride then. Government subsidy is going to
trains today.
>> I don't doubt there were some instances where an auto company or an oil
>> company used government to destroy a rail or street car or bus line, but
>> ultimately then that problem is the state which prevents free market
>> competition. Of the market choices that did exist people overwhelmingly
>> chose the automobile.
> Maybe you need to look at the things GM did to the independent
> automakers. Hudson, Nash, Studebaker, Tucker, Packard, Kaiser, Willys, and
> others. Blocking access to steel. Tires. Machining equipment. The
> independents had to pay TWICE what GM did for steel WHEN they could get it.
> Not to mention constant litigation. Promoting labor problems.
So now you're saying tire,steel,and machine tool companies refused to
sell their goods to help GM... I'd like to see that proof. For steel
anyway you're probably neglecting this:
http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1394
"Truman.s Attempt to Seize the Steel Industry"
Brent
> http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf
This is an excellent article. The street car companies doing much of
what GM is accused to doing to them, but to the Jitney bus companies.
The article makes it clear that the street car companies failed to
compete against buses from the very begining and only lasted as long as
they did through government action to destroy competition from bus
companies.
Brent
> In message <h0lu0u$cf4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Brent
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>How does one 'destroy' their competition? Either you have to buy them,
>>which means you're already winning, or use government.
>
Actually, that's what some street car companies did to bus companies.
See the NJ example: http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf (except in
this case the street car companies started shutting down their street
cars to operate buses.
> Have you read Flink's book?
No. Why should I bother?
Brent
> run on. "Cheaper," in this case, is an illusion.
Not according to industry publications of the period. The capitial and
operating costs of street car service was significantly more than buses.
Some of the last street car operations to be converted to buses saw cost
reductions of aproximately 50%.
http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf
"According to one report, "During the
1920s intercity bus fares averaged 2.25
cents per mile, with a low of 1.8 cents,
white the interurbans charged between
2.4 and 3.0 cents per mile."112 In 1931,
the British found that "...the cost of running
a large capacity (motor bus) is no
higher than that for running a (streetcar)."
113 In 1938 the Union Street Railway
of New Bedford, Massachusetts,
said that their operating cost per seatmile
for buses was nearly 20% less than
for streetcars."114 In 1936, Fortune
magazine reported, "The average large
bus can be operated for about four-fifths
the cost of running a trolley."115 In the
United Kingdom, "By the thirties costs
per passenger on buses were comparable
to those on (streetcars), instead of more
than twice as high as they had often
been around 1920."116
Buses continued to reduce their costs
relative to streetcars and electric trolleys
and so generally replaced them. By
1949, San Francisco would report their
average hourly operating costs as $4.50
for buses versus $7.11 for streetcars.
37% less.117 When Philadelphia changed
from streetcars to buses in 1961, they
reported their operating costs for rail
lines as a prohibitively high 93.5� per
mile v. the cost of the bus at 47.7� per
mile.nearly twice as much."
Hachiroku ハチロク
(At least in Government officials...)
Vic Smith
<scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>Cheaper to maintain a rubber-tired gas/diesel engine bus than
>>tracks/wires all over the place.
>>It ain't rocket science.
>
>How conveniently you ignore the costs of the ROADS that those vehicles
>run on. "Cheaper," in this case, is an illusion.
You're not making sense. I was there when the streetcars and trolleys
in Chicago went the way of the dodo bird.
The roads were already there. I saw them.
You don't really think that streetcars came before roads, do you?
All those tracks and trolleys did was make the streets harder to
maintain.
We're talking streetcars here, not interstate highways, or
cross-country trains.
What - is there a "bring back the streetcar" society or something?
Yeah, and horses too. And slide rules.
If you want to think that a bus with an engine is less economical and
flexible than a system of tracks and wires, go right ahead.
--Vic
krp
"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b7vt251stumrul4gr...@4ax.com...
>>>>> That's a new twist. The traditional story was it was GM alone in their
>>>>> effort to sell buses.
>>>
>>>> GM's agenda was to sell CARS - the bus deal was merely comoflage.
>>>> GM
>>>> and
>>>> BIG OIL wanted to destroy public transportation. To GM they could sell
>>>> assloads of cars, and the oil companies, shitloads of oil products.
>>>> The
>>>> WAR
>>>> was in the 50's. Figue out how much revenue Standard oil got from one
>>>> streetcar? ZIP. Now take the passengers in one trolley. Say 50 at a
>>>> crack.
>>>> And now they are in 50 cars guggling gas to the tune of 8 MPG, plus oil
>>>> changes. And we have PROFITS..
>>>
>>> You're just spewing one urban legend after another.
>>
>> If that belief makes you feel better. Give us YOUR version of what
>>streetcars and trolley buses went away.
>>
> Cheaper to maintain a rubber-tired gas/diesel engine bus than
> tracks/wires all over the place.
> It ain't rocket science.
REALLY? How many times a month do you need to change the oil in a
street car? How often to those rails wear out? The wires? You you have to
REWIRE your house once a month? Here is a CLUE for you. They laid track for
most of the Chicago "L" and subways in 1920. 90% of that track is still
being used today. Same with the wires. They change the wheels on the cars
about once every 10 years. Talk about retreads, they just get melted down
and recast.. It costs much more to maintain a BUS - SORRY. Try again.
krp
"Roger Blake" <rogbl...@iname10.com> wrote in message
news:slrnh2u00g.b...@otaku.freeshell.org...
>> If that belief makes you feel better. Give us YOUR version of what
>> streetcars and trolley buses went away.
>
> http://www.upa.pdx.edu/CUS/publications/docs/DP98-11.pdf
> http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf
> http://www.uncanny.net/~wetzel/pedemise.htm
> http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/g/e/General_Motors_Streetcar_Conspiracy.html
> http://www.ecoworld.com/features/tag/streetcars/
> http://articles.latimes.com/2003/mar/23/local/me-then23
There is plenty blame to go around in the demise of street cars and
trolley buses. I can't deny that public transportation suffed from bad
management. Poor planning meant that the companies REFUSED to modernize or
pay ANY attention to the realities of services. Such as having slightly
bigger cars and more of them. Not being able to project ridership and have
enough seats to handle the passengers. You saee the same BULLSHIT with
airline overbooking today and the "SCREW YOU" attitude of airline
management. (They learned that at HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL.) Of course a
differemce IS that in 1940 The trolley company (Pacific Electric as AN
example) did NOT nhave the benefit of computers. DELTA DOES!
None of this changes or makes go away what GM actually did. Although
your articles ATTEMPT to rehab GM's behavior and ignore the totality of what
was being done, they miss the mark.
krp
> On 2009-06-09, krp <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I decided not to respond to the theater of the ABSURD that the
>> automobile was "NEW TECHNOLOGY" in the 1950's, I was laughing so hard I
>> nearly pissed myself. The autombile was "NEW TECHNOLOGY" in the 1890's.
>> Not
>> 1959!
>
> That's not what I wrote. I wrote that street cars suffered from new
> affordable technology and did not put a date on it. If you had a clue
> you would have known that spoke of the 1920s. Which is when the
> automobiles were the new AFFORDABLE technology.
What new affordable technology Brent? The problem with the streetcar
companies is that they suffered from the SAME BUSINESS model that has now
taken General Motors to the same place the street car companies were in
1955. That's because they both operated on the HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL
model. Screw the customer has hard as you can and focus ONLY on the "BOTTOM
LINE." Street car company managements refused to modernize. Refused to look
at data that SHOULD have dictated changes. BOTTOM LINE! BOTTOM LINE!
BOTTOM LINE! No reinvestment. Just get every penny out today you can and let
tomorrow take care of itself, BOTTOM LINE! BOTTOM LINE! BOTTOM LINE!
Look at today's airline industry as a good study. Many of the largest
airlines have been in bankruptcy and are STILL losing money at incredible
rates. WHY? BOTTOM LINE! BOTTOM LINE! BOTTOM LINE! ALL HAIL HARVARD!
Instead of making passengers MORE comfortable, the airlines are putting in
MORE seats reducing leg room and hip room. Tell me, are Americans suddenly
getting significantly SMALLER????? The typical flight is OVERBOOKED by 20%.
And the airlines take a "TOUGH SHIT" attitude.
At least the trolley companies existed in a time when they didn't have
computers to plan ridership. Airlines Do and say "SCREW YOU!"
The automobile was NOT all that affordable. Let's cut the shit. When
Ford first started making his cars they cost as much as a HOUSE. There were
almost NO gas stations. Cars were VERY expensive at first. And it is still
cheaper to take a bus that operate a car today. You just can't do it.
GM conspired to kill competition. However - a point can be made that the
transportation companies were complicit in their own demise. MOST of the
rolling stock in street cars in America were 30 years old or older. San
Francisco is STILL using cars built in the 19th century.
krp
>> People took
>> trains because the roads were poor. As bad as the rails were it was
>> better.
>> And going into the 50's automatic transmissions were rare and power
>> brakes
>> and steering even more rare. A drive from C hicaho to LA in a CAR could
>> take
>> 2 weeks. 1 week by train. When airplanes came in, hours. In a car you
>> were
>> DEAD by the time you got there.
>
> LOL. talk about creating your own reality. ATs were rare in the 1940s,
> not the 1950s. Here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_transmission Your description of
> the roads is for the 1920s...
The "HYDRAMATIC" if you read the article you quote - came on GM cars
AFTER the end of WW-2. While many cars offered automatics as an OPTION by
the mid 1950's, it was expensive and MOST cars still had 3 on the tree. It
was not till late in the 1950's that automatic transmissions started taking
over. The Fluid drive of Chrysler's was a dud. The early Hydramatics were
disappointing at best. Buick's "DYYNAFLOW" (known as DYNASLUSH by most car
people) were extremely inefficient.Chrysler got into the game with
Torqeflight transmissions about 1957. The independents were BUYING
Hydramatics from GM. That explains itself.
>>> Passenger rail was dying on its own by the 1950s. But in order to retain
>>> their freight services the rail companies were forced by government to
>>> maintain passenger service.
>
>> Apples and oranges. Passenger rail had airplanes to contend with and
>> ANCIENT poorly maintained rails. Igt tooks a TRAIL a WEEK to get from
>> Chicago to Los Angeles in 1957. It took an airplane 6 HOURS. PLUS with
>> government subsidies a plane ticket cost HALF what it took to take the
>> train. Given the deplorable condition of the rails, you were slapped
>> around
>> and bounced in the poorly air conditioned cars. Again VERY aged.
> Flying was expensive in the 1950s. Ordinary people did not fly and it
> didn't cost less than a train ride then. Government subsidy is going to
> trains today.
It was expensive in 1950. By 1957 air travel was cheap compared. TRY to
do a little math. You spent a WEEK on the train. Do you think you would eat
for free? Pack food for a week? You ate on the train (EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE)
, OR when you got lucky and the tran had a 30 minute stop you dashed off,
bought some sandwiches and drinks and RAN back to the train. Now add the
cost of the ticket, and the cost of 3 meals a day. Not to mention sanitary
needs. I was a fairly ordinary person.. I flew lots in the late 50's. (59)
To be sure it was NOT like it is today.
>>> I don't doubt there were some instances where an auto company or an oil
>>> company used government to destroy a rail or street car or bus line, but
>>> ultimately then that problem is the state which prevents free market
>>> competition. Of the market choices that did exist people overwhelmingly
>>> chose the automobile.
>
>> Maybe you need to look at the things GM did to the independent
>> automakers. Hudson, Nash, Studebaker, Tucker, Packard, Kaiser, Willys,
>> and
>> others. Blocking access to steel. Tires. Machining equipment. The
>> independents had to pay TWICE what GM did for steel WHEN they could get
>> it.
>> Not to mention constant litigation. Promoting labor problems.
> So now you're saying tire,steel,and machine tool companies refused to
> sell their goods to help GM... I'd like to see that proof. For steel
> anyway you're probably neglecting this: (Truman's steel debacle)
By the time Truman got into the mess what he did had almost NO effect on
the automobile industry. There are several books that cover parts of this
subject starting with one they made a movie about; "Tucker the man and his
Dream" only slightly fictionalized, and "Last Onslought on Detroit." Showing
how the INDEPENDENT car makers faced big problems getting steel.
krp
"Scott in SoCal" <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8t6u25t9a91nqejb6...@4ax.com...
> How conveniently you ignore the costs of the ROADS that those vehicles
> run on. "Cheaper," in this case, is an illusion.
He ignores a great deal. How many ROADS lat 100 years without
significant repair? How many OIL CHANGES does an electric trolley need in a
month? How many "TIRES" does a trolley need in a year? Oh wait. The wheel
usually last 20 years. SHIT!!!!!! He didn't figure that either. Seen the
RINGS wear out on a trolley? Does a trolley's carburetor get gunked up? How
many MUFFLERS does a street car use in a year? Those wires? Chicago has had
it's "L" system for MORE than a century. MOST of those FRAGILE wires are
ORIGINAL. SHIT there it goes again. REALITY!
Vic Smith
>>>
>>> If that belief makes you feel better. Give us YOUR version of what
>>>streetcars and trolley buses went away.
>>>
>> Cheaper to maintain a rubber-tired gas/diesel engine bus than
>> tracks/wires all over the place.
>> It ain't rocket science.
>
>
> REALLY? How many times a month do you need to change the oil in a
>street car? How often to those rails wear out? The wires? You you have to
>REWIRE your house once a month? Here is a CLUE for you. They laid track for
>most of the Chicago "L" and subways in 1920. 90% of that track is still
>being used today. Same with the wires. They change the wheels on the cars
>about once every 10 years. Talk about retreads, they just get melted down
>and recast.. It costs much more to maintain a BUS - SORRY. Try again.
The El and subway are still major people carriers.
They use a 3rd rail, not trolley wires.
And there's plenty of maintenance on the motors, which burn out every
so many miles. One of my brothers used to work on them.
Main reason they still exist is they are fairly efficient arterial
people carriers which got their own private right-of-ways early.
Or maybe the conspiracy didn't look up and down to see them.
Streetcars and trolleys are a different story.
They always had to share the streets with horses, cars and trucks, and
were the only things that couldn't get out of their own way.
They never went to all the places the buses go now, because nobody was
foolish enough to lay track and hang wire on every street every half
mile. Buses do that easily, and can immediately go to new routes, or
abandon old ones, leaving nothing behind.
And thems the FACTS, JACK.
--Vic
krp
Yep that's exactly what GM said!! (NOT TRUE HOWEVER)
> http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf
The problem with that "STUDY" is what it did NOT consider. The cost of
roads. ALL the maintenance costs, Labor differentials. In most cities, by
rules a streetcar had TWO people on it. The driver and the conductor all
UNION! By the time that changed, it was too late. Street cars being operated
in most cities were a century old. Uncomfortable as hell. NO air
conditioning in summer and unregulated hear in winter that usually had
passengers in cold climates ride with the windows open as it could go over
100 degrees inside. They didn't have thermostats (BOTTOM LINE! BOTTOM LINE!)
the driver just has an ON and OFF and HE was not allowed by UNION RULES to
change it.
This is the old saying; that "figures don't lie, but LIARS sure do
figure!"
krp
>>>Cheaper to maintain a rubber-tired gas/diesel engine bus than
>>>tracks/wires all over the place.
>>>It ain't rocket science.
>>
>>How conveniently you ignore the costs of the ROADS that those vehicles
>>run on. "Cheaper," in this case, is an illusion.
> You're not making sense. I was there when the streetcars and trolleys
> in Chicago went the way of the dodo bird.
Actually Chicago STILL has a large part of the system. The "L" and the
subway. What they did was get rid of the surface cars.
> The roads were already there. I saw them.
So? And do they REPAVE roads where you live?
> You don't really think that streetcars came before roads, do you?
In some places THEY DID!
> All those tracks and trolleys did was make the streets harder to maintain.
How is that?
> We're talking streetcars here, not interstate highways, or
> cross-country trains.
AND?
> What - is there a "bring back the streetcar" society or something?
Light rail is being discussed in many places Victor.
> Yeah, and horses too. And slide rules.
If you want them.
> If you want to think that a bus with an engine is less economical and
> flexible than a system of tracks and wires, go right ahead.
If you count ALL the costs - yes.
krp
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
And the people who ELECT them?
Vic Smith
Already said they don't build roads for trolleys or streetcars.
They tear them up to lay track, and then have to maintain all the
joints. And electric motors. And overhead wiring.
Miles and miles and miles of it.
You ought to know the difference between the El/subway and trolley
cars. The EL/subway has its own protected right-of-way and stops only
at passenger points.
There's a reason trolleys went the way of the dodo, and it wasn't a
conspiracy. Buses just do it cheaper.
If you don't believe it, petition your municipality to lay track and
hang wire everywhere buses run.
You'll be run out of town - on a rail.
--Vic
krp
>>>> If that belief makes you feel better. Give us YOUR version of what
>>>>streetcars and trolley buses went away.
>>>>
>>> Cheaper to maintain a rubber-tired gas/diesel engine bus than
>>> tracks/wires all over the place.
>>> It ain't rocket science.
>> REALLY? How many times a month do you need to change the oil in a
>>street car? How often to those rails wear out? The wires? You you have to
>>REWIRE your house once a month? Here is a CLUE for you. They laid track
>>for
>>most of the Chicago "L" and subways in 1920. 90% of that track is still
>>being used today. Same with the wires. They change the wheels on the cars
>>about once every 10 years. Talk about retreads, they just get melted down
>>and recast.. It costs much more to maintain a BUS - SORRY. Try again.
> The El and subway are still major people carriers.
As is the subway in New York.
> They use a 3rd rail, not trolley wires.
So? I agree the wires are ugly. BUT Europe uses trolleys with wires. It
seems to work very well. Of course the difference is that they are using
modern carriages.
> And there's plenty of maintenance on the motors, which burn out every so
> many miles.
Really? BURN OUT, eh? OR is it that the carbon BRUSHES have to be
replaced once a year?
> One of my brothers used to work on them.
> Main reason they still exist is they are fairly efficient arterial
> people carriers which got their own private right-of-ways early.
Then you know that maintenenance on electric motors is minimal. The
armature RARELY wears out. Usually a set of carbon brushes lasts more than a
year. They are cheap to replace. A wheel can easily last 20 years. How long
does a tire on a BUS last? When that wheel is yanked, it gets melted down
and recast as a NEW wheel.
> Or maybe the conspiracy didn't look up and down to see them.
> Streetcars and trolleys are a different story.
> They always had to share the streets with horses, cars and trucks, and
> were the only things that couldn't get out of their own way.
> They never went to all the places the buses go now, because nobody was
> foolish enough to lay track and hang wire on every street every half
> mile. Buses do that easily, and can immediately go to new routes, or
> abandon old ones, leaving nothing behind.
> And thems the FACTS, JACK.
As was shown earlier by a comrade of yours, most street car companies
had ulterior motives for their routes. No real PLANNING went into routes.
Even as they were failing they took NO efforts to do any ridership
statistical review. They never even asked WHY they were dying. (BOTTOM
LINE!!!) Nobody sat down in any kind of urban planning and looked at where
routes should be. HAD they developed an effective GRID system it is likely
they would still exist. The companies ran on the HARVARD BUSINESS model of
SHORT TERM GAIN. Show me a Harvard MBA and you'll show me a fukking IDIOT!
krp
For the most part that TRACK was down for decades. Once down little
maintenance is needed. Buses did not REALLY do it cheaper. The CTA was
BRIBED by GM to get rid of the streetcars and trolley buses.Yeah everything
in Chicago is on the UP and UP. (Daly, Blago) HA HA HA HA HA!
Vic Smith
>
>> All those tracks and trolleys did was make the streets harder to maintain.
>
> How is that?
>
Only streetcars I saw when growing up were on 47th Street. All
cobblestone where the tracks were.
The bus trolleys lasted longer, but just think about all that overhead
wire.
>> We're talking streetcars here, not interstate highways, or
>> cross-country trains.
>
> AND?
>
The suggestion was made that with streetcars roads aren't necessary.
You still need roads, and all the streetcars and trolleys I've seen
were put on existing roads.
>> What - is there a "bring back the streetcar" society or something?
>
> Light rail is being discussed in many places Victor.
>
That's fine, and I'm for it if it works.
Railed streetcars and electric trolleys don't.
You'll never see it.
Better to just put batteries on buses and work the required battery
changing infrastructure than to hang wires all over the place.
--Vic
ben91932
> >> BIG OIL wanted to destroy public transportation. To GM they could sell
> >> assloads of cars, and the oil companies, shitloads of oil products.
I heard it was so they could sell busses.
It was a conspiracy started in the '20's, and it wasnt just big oil,
they were in cahoots with Mack GM and Firestone.
A big trolley/train station, long ago bought and boarded up by GM et
al, just reopened as upscale condo's in LA.
Lots of info on this starting here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Now GM/Chevron have the patent to the only proven affordable large
format EV battery which has slowed EV development drastically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries
Evil bastards...
ben91932
> Cheaper to maintain a rubber-tired gas/diesel engine bus than
> tracks/wires all over the place.
> It ain't rocket science.
Trains/Trolleys are incredibly cheap and clean compared to busses...
ben91932
*Everything* I have read is contrary to this article.
This book:
http://www.internalcombustionbook.com/
is incredibly well researched and a pretty good read.Kinda scary
actually...
HTH,
Ben
TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com
> <TedKennedyMurderedHisPregnantMistress.dwp...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
> messagenews:8c4a2422-094f-4028...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 8, 10:55 am, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <TedKennedyMurderedHisPregnantMistress.dwp...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:10e84d1a-9aec-4343...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 8, 6:36 am, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Scott in SoCal" <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > messagenews:jk4p25hnep7akvsu4...@4ax.com...
>
> > > > In message <h0i2e1$4j...@news.eternal-september.org>, Brent
> > > > <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>In three years GM will be profitable and the government can sell it
> > > >>off
> > > >>just like Nixon promised with amtrack!
>
> > > > Nixon promised that?
>
> > > YEP. He promised to make Amtrak profitable in 2 years. Just like the
> > > Feds promise to have the Post Office turn a profit. Don't worry - they
> > > will
> > > "FIX" your healthcare!
>
> > TK> Put the government in charge of the desert, and within 10 years you'll
> > TK> have a shortage of sand.
>
> > ` But many folks want them to manage our HEALTH CARE!!!
>
> TK> dumber, not smarter.
>
> I have a theory on this. Every species DNA has a natural expiration
> date. The dinosaurs had theirs run out. With what I am seeing in people
> today, I think nature is telling us "TIME'S UP!!!!!"
Certainly plausible; the population I observe is NOT increasing in
their reasoning capabilities.
Brent
> On Jun 9, 7:31�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-06-10, Roger Blake <rogblak...@iname10.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf
>>
>> This is an excellent article. The street car companies doing much of
>> what GM is accused to doing to them, but to the Jitney bus companies.
>> The article makes it clear that the street car companies failed to
>> compete against buses from the very begining and only lasted as long as
>> they did through government action to destroy competition from bus
>> companies.
>
> *Everything* I have read is contrary to this article.
As the author points out, fantasy has displaced reality. The political,
economic, and engineering realities doomed the street car. They doomed
the street car even where there was no general motors, no big oil, and
no tire companies. All it took to put street car companies under severe
fianicial stress were people using their large passenger cars to carry
riders for a price.
> This book:
> http://www.internalcombustionbook.com/
> is incredibly well researched and a pretty good read.Kinda scary
> actually...
Lol. Just from that web link I can tell it is crap. The 'alternatives'
were the leaders once upon a time but then reached a technological wall.
Despite all sorts of efforts they can't get past the energy storage
problems. The reality is there are a lot of people who hate the
automobile and internal combustion because of the freedom it gives
people. Ultimately that is the root issue time and time again. They will
point to alternatives until those alternatives break their technological
barrier and they will attack those.
Wind power was great until it was viable, now it's a bird chopping
environmental disaster. It's already starting with hybrid cars. They
will take any form of energy and point to whatever drawbacks they can
find, because their goal isn't the environment or any other noble idea,
it's control. Telling everyone how to live, to control society at large.
Brent
>
> "Brent" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:h0n00u$mip$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 2009-06-09, krp <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I decided not to respond to the theater of the ABSURD that the
>>> automobile was "NEW TECHNOLOGY" in the 1950's, I was laughing so hard I
>>> nearly pissed myself. The autombile was "NEW TECHNOLOGY" in the 1890's.
>>> Not
>>> 1959!
>>
>> That's not what I wrote. I wrote that street cars suffered from new
>> affordable technology and did not put a date on it. If you had a clue
>> you would have known that spoke of the 1920s. Which is when the
>> automobiles were the new AFFORDABLE technology.
> What new affordable technology Brent?
Perhaps you should read what was already written.
> The problem with the streetcar
> companies is that they suffered from the SAME BUSINESS model that has now
> taken General Motors to the same place the street car companies were in
> 1955. That's because they both operated on the HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL
> model. Screw the customer has hard as you can and focus ONLY on the "BOTTOM
> LINE." Street car company managements refused to modernize. Refused to look
> at data that SHOULD have dictated changes. BOTTOM LINE! BOTTOM LINE!
> BOTTOM LINE! No reinvestment. Just get every penny out today you can and let
> tomorrow take care of itself, BOTTOM LINE! BOTTOM LINE! BOTTOM LINE!
So now you're changing your tune. It wasn't GM that killed the street
car, it was the incompetence of the street car companies themselves and
their static business model rooted in political protection from the
state. Oddly that's what I've been arguing. Glad you agree now.
<sniP>
Brent
> news:h0n0uq$eh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>> People took
>>> trains because the roads were poor. As bad as the rails were it was
>>> better.
>>> And going into the 50's automatic transmissions were rare and power
>>> brakes
>>> and steering even more rare. A drive from C hicaho to LA in a CAR could
>>> take
>>> 2 weeks. 1 week by train. When airplanes came in, hours. In a car you
>>> were
>>> DEAD by the time you got there.
>>
>> LOL. talk about creating your own reality. ATs were rare in the 1940s,
>> not the 1950s. Here:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_transmission Your description of
>> the roads is for the 1920s...
>
> The "HYDRAMATIC" if you read the article you quote - came on GM cars
> AFTER the end of WW-2. While many cars offered automatics as an OPTION by
> the mid 1950's, it was expensive and MOST cars still had 3 on the tree. It
> was not till late in the 1950's that automatic transmissions started taking
> over.
Started taking over means the majority. So throughout the 1950s it was
not rare, but had significant market share. Thanks for agreeing.
Brent
Again, thanks for agreeing that street car companies used an outdated
business model rooted in government based protection. Government
regulation that could not be changed with the times. The state was the
biggest enemy of the street car, not GM.
> This is the old saying; that "figures don't lie, but LIARS sure do
> figure!"
Maybe you should read the entire article.
Brent
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Have you read Flink's book?
>>
>>No. Why should I bother?
>
> Because you want to know the truth about what happened?
Why is it the truth and not what I've already read?
Street car companies lived and died by the state. The enemy wasn't GM,
it was progress and economic interference by the government.
Brent
> maintain the streets they ran on as part of their franchise
> agreements. These companies also had to pay taxes on any private ROW
> that they owned. Show me a bus company that had to pay these costs and
> I'll show you a bus line that was NOT cheaper than an equivalent
> streetcar line.
My argument is that the government interference was the enemy, not GM.
Now you're arguing it was the government imposed costs and taxes that
did them in. Gee, that's what I've been arguing.
>>Some of the last street car operations to be converted to buses saw cost
>>reductions of aproximately 50%.
> "Reduction" is the wrong word. "Transfer" is more accurate, as the
> costs of owning and maintaining the ROW that the vehicles run on was
> shifted from the private company to the taxpayers.
Please explain how taxpayer operated street car transit is less
expensive than taxpayer operated bus transit.
jim
Brent wrote:
> My argument is that the government interference was the enemy, not GM.
> Now you're arguing it was the government imposed costs and taxes that
> did them in. Gee, that's what I've been arguing.
I don't think you are bright enough to even know what you are arguing or
why. Government building roads made the auto economically viable. If the
government built and maintained the railway tracks that would have made
rail as a mode of transportation economically viable. However, it is a
pretty contorted logic that arrives at the conclusion that the
governments failure to finance the building of rail infrastructure
constitutes "interference".
-jim
Hachiroku ハチロク
Safe to say I didn't vote for anyone that got elected?
krp
>
>>> All those tracks and trolleys did was make the streets harder to
>>> maintain.
>>
>> How is that?
> Only streetcars I saw when growing up were on 47th Street. All
> cobblestone where the tracks were.
> The bus trolleys lasted longer, but just think about all that overhead
> wire.
Yes, it causes BRAIN damage, right?
>>> We're talking streetcars here, not interstate highways, or
>>> cross-country trains.
>> AND?
> The suggestion was made that with streetcars roads aren't necessary.
> You still need roads, and all the streetcars and trolleys I've seen
> were put on existing roads.
There were MANY MILES of track where tghere were NO roads when they were
laid. Roads came later. Especially PAVED roads.
>>> What - is there a "bring back the streetcar" society or something?
>> Light rail is being discussed in many places Victor.
>
> That's fine, and I'm for it if it works.
> Railed streetcars and electric trolleys don't.
That's what light rail is. It has had marginal success in places like
Salt Lake City. Buit as in the past there is no significant commitment to
it.
> You'll never see it. Better to just put batteries on buses and work the
> required battery
> changing infrastructure than to hang wires all over the place.
It would be simpler to bury the power source and have a T shaped
connector get the two poles.But that design has problems in the rain and
snow. Which is why a SUBWAY system is the cheapest way to go.
krp
"ben91932" <bente...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d17fc7ee-cce9-4491...@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
>> >> BIG OIL wanted to destroy public transportation. To GM they could sell
>> >> assloads of cars, and the oil companies, shitloads of oil products.
>
> I heard it was so they could sell busses.
GM never liked the Bus business and still doesn't.
krp
<TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
message
news:64b39a4b-b184-4513...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >>In three years GM will be profitable and the government can sell it
> > > >>off
> > > >>just like Nixon promised with amtrack!
>
> > > > Nixon promised that?
>
> > > YEP. He promised to make Amtrak profitable in 2 years. Just like the
> > > Feds promise to have the Post Office turn a profit. Don't worry - they
> > > will
> > > "FIX" your healthcare!
>
> > TK> Put the government in charge of the desert, and within 10 years
> > you'll
> > TK> have a shortage of sand.
>
> > ` But many folks want them to manage our HEALTH CARE!!!
>
> TK> That seems to support my theory that the average American is getting
> TK> dumber, not smarter.
>
> I have a theory on this. Every species DNA has a natural expiration
> date. The dinosaurs had theirs run out. With what I am seeing in people
> today, I think nature is telling us "TIME'S UP!!!!!"
TK> Certainly plausible; the population I observe is NOT increasing in
TK> their reasoning capabilities.
The reasoning we have been reading in this thread certainly seems to
prove the point.