Still Hating America.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Or to repeat myself, the current form of Republican is just a renamed Southern Democrat. George Bush is Lloyd Bentsen without the savvy.

Spanky: "I think Less is even more libertarian because I don't think Less would support the US getting involved in any foreign wars and he would end all zoning laws. At least that is the way he used to think."

Not quite. I have always agreed with the need for security from within and without to some degree. Now, however, I would opt for cheaper and more effective forms of addressing our enemies than the NeoCon's proven expensive and ineffective ones in Afganistan and Iraq (although nothing has been more ineffective, inefficient, ridiculous nad harmful abroad and within than the 80-year failure that is the so-called War on Drugs). I lean more towards better funded intelligence than armed services, and the use of assassination instead of the blunt instrument that is an army, navy or air force.

2, 2 and 2. The cost of assassinating leaders is a tiny fraction of the lives and money wasted in that Iraq debacle (though I wouldn;t have assassinated Saddam anyway; throwing him out of power was an idiotic move). It's funny a country as allegedly innovative as ours can't grasp the idea of fighting fire with fire.

If they're going to take our liberties for this Patriot Act thing, well then for God's sake, use the expanded powers to secretely kill our enemies. Hide the info from me. I don't care what our govt's doing secretly and cheaply to other nation's leaders who imperil our economy and safety.

30 years ago, the US and ITT took out Allende. Now we can't even pick off a fool like Chavez.* We need to quit wasting our soldiers lives by making them work as a police force and start giving the CIA carte blanche to do what they were created to do.

That we made assassination technically illegal as part of some obscene do-goodery legislation demonstrates why a lot of people, and most politicians, shouldn't be allowed to vote.

* Yes, I recognize Chavez is not really a threat, because we can hurt him economically a lot more than he can hurt us, but I use the botched coup against him as an example of our incompetence in this area.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Former Wyo. Sen. Alan Simpson:

• As a lifelong Republican

Not that I think anyone on this board will disagree, but good for him.

What happened to all these republicans during the Clinton admin? Were they all put out to pasture?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Question: Under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy rule, each manufacturer must produce cars such that the overall annual fleet has a certain fuel economy.

Why are production rights not tradeable? In other words, if Ford wants to produce loads of exploders, why shouldn't they be able to purchase credits from, say, Saturn or Toyota, rather than having to produce Escorts and Foci?

Why are the Democrats who are pushing higher standards not providing for such greater flexibility?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What happened to all these republicans during the Clinton admin? Were they all put out to pasture?

I'm pretty sure that Clinton removed Simpson from office for failing to agree with the Administration's priorities. Apparently that's pretty routine.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Question: Under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy rule, each manufacturer must produce cars such that the overall annual fleet has a certain fuel economy.

I've never understood how this works. Is it cars offered? Built? Sold? Sold and leased?

Why are production rights not tradeable? In other words, if Ford wants to produce loads of exploders, why shouldn't they be able to purchase credits from, say, Saturn or Toyota, rather than having to produce Escorts and Foci?

Why are the Democrats who are pushing higher standards not providing for such greater flexibility?

Excellent idea.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Question: Under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy rule, each manufacturer must produce cars such that the overall annual fleet has a certain fuel economy.

Why are production rights not tradeable? In other words, if Ford wants to produce loads of exploders, why shouldn't they be able to purchase credits from, say, Saturn or Toyota, rather than having to produce Escorts and Foci?

Why are the Democrats who are pushing higher standards not providing for such greater flexibility?

I watched some economic the other day talking about how they will be traeable shortly. He also envisioned carbon emissions credits being tradable when they are inevitably introduced as part olf new global warming regulations.

His take was corp America is already engaging the govt on these issues to ensure that a framework in which they can profit from such trading will be built into the legislation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Excellent idea.

really? Isn't that just like letting Gore keep his mansion?

Ford would need to buy credits because it is selling big fuel burners. The point of the legislation is to get Ford to work on it's technology so that it's average MPG goes down. Here you are lettingFord layoff engineers who were working on lowering MPG and use some of that money to pay Toyota. i suppose the Ford engineers could get on at Toyota then, but I really think we should encourage Ford to make better cars, no?

[Adder]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Or to repeat myself, the current form of Republican is just a renamed Southern Democrat. George Bush is Lloyd Bentsen without the savvy.

Except with an extra measure of (perhaps affected) Christianity.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
really? Isn't that just like letting Gore keep his mansion?

Ford would need to buy credits because it is selling big fuel burners. The point of the legislation is to get Ford to work on it's technology so that it's average MPG goes down. Here you are lettingFord layoff engineers who were working on lowering MPG and use some of that money to pay Toyota. i suppose the Ford engineers could get on at Toyota then, but I really think we should encourage Ford to make better cars, no?

So? If Ford finds it cheaper to pay Toyota to hire engineers than to hire their own, why not let them? If Ford's engineers are either better or cheaper, Ford will not buy credits from Toyota. On the other hand, if Ford's engineers are fat and lazy, well, then what's the problem with laying them off?

What's even more likely to happen is that Ford will fire them, buy the credits from Toyota, who will hire Ford's former engineers, but get 25% more productivity from them.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I watched some economic the other day talking about how they will be traeable shortly..

I understand that Europe is considering tradeable CAFE-like permits (they'll have comparable standards, not called CAFE, but tradeable).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've never understood how this works. Is it cars offered? Built? Sold? .

I think it's built, but not certain. Basically you take the EPA mileage ratings for each car built in a given year, average them, and have to be above the CAFE number. You can go forward and back three years I think for internal credits, so if you build too many exploders in 2003, you can ramp up the focus in 2004 and avoid teh fine (which no company has ever paid to my knowledge--at least as of when I took a class that covered it in college)

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Question: Under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy rule, each manufacturer must produce cars such that the overall annual fleet has a certain fuel economy.

Why are production rights not tradeable? In other words, if Ford wants to produce loads of exploders, why shouldn't they be able to purchase credits from, say, Saturn or Toyota, rather than having to produce Escorts and Foci?

Why are the Democrats who are pushing higher standards not providing for such greater flexibility?

Because the goal is to get fewer explorers on the road rather than that same number?

Of course, the right way to do this is directly, but jacking up the gas tax and leaving it to consumers to decide.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
really? Isn't that just like letting Gore keep his mansion?

Why do you hate property rights?

Ford would need to buy credits because it is selling big fuel burners. The point of the legislation is to get Ford to work on it's technology so that it's average MPG goes down.

No. The point of the legislation is to get aggregate average MPG down. If it's cheaper to get that reduction by having some car companies do better and some do worse, then we still get our average MPG down and we do it for cheaper. Win-win.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
Because the goal is to get fewer explorers on the road rather than that same number?

Of course, the right way to do this is directly, but jacking up the gas tax and leaving it to consumers to decide.

It's easier to get re-elected if the cost to consumers is baked into the cost of a new car, rather than added to the price of gas at the pump.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So? If Ford finds it cheaper to pay Toyota to hire engineers than to hire their own, why not let them?

ummm, because the goal is to get bad cars off the road?