Harry, Let's say that we legislate the general dimensions of passenger cars. For city use they all are somewhat like a Corolla. In fact for all uses. So in an accident it is Corolla-type vehicles against other Corolla-type vehicles.
We standardize on other things in our society (plugs, suitcases for carry on travel, etc) so why not standardize on vehicle size. Put all the "bells and whistles" you want in them. But keep size and weight somewhat the same. Too much government you say? You say you want the freedom to choose? You want to drive the SUV of your choice--perhaps a Hummer. Well to protect myself from freedom loving folks such as you I will appear in traffic with Sherman tank. arthur -----Original Message----- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 7:18 PM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] "Wettbewerb macht frei"? (market competition) Arthur, Chris is often wrong, but never realizes it because he takes no notice of correction. On my recent trip, neither of our car hires provided me with the cars I wanted. In each case I was upgraded to an SUV. They were great to drive, had lots of glass and space for viewing, and they were loaded with all the bells and whistles with which men love to play. Our British car was a diesel, which somewhat surprised me. I thought they were mostly a thing of the past. It gobbled fuel, which hurt at those English prices. Light trucks have a high driver casualty rate. SUV's were statistically bundled in with light trucks which gave a completely wrong impression. These results was touted by those who didn't like SUV's as proof that they were dangerous. Actually sub-compacts have a worse driver casualty rate than SUV's - but sub-compacts are beloved of the anti-SUV crowd so we mustn't mention that. Want safety? Get one of the specialty luxury cars - of the Affinity, Lexus, ilk. Of course they are a might pricey but you have to pay for excellence. Chris mentioned "previously popular light/solar vehicles". I don't know where he gets these fantasies. Harry ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur wrote: >Chris has a point. Fuel efficiency standards were brought into law. The >SUV was the loophole to dodge the standards. Politicians and lobbyists >allowed a product to capture a large share of the market. A product that >yields some private benefit (a feeling of power, a Marlboro man--but the >rollovers become the cancer of the Marlboro analogy) at a large public >cost (fuel usage and pollution and crowding). If the SUV was counted as >part of the CAFE standards it would have not been built in such quantities. > >arthur > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 9:25 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [Futurework] "Wettbewerb macht frei"? (market competition) > > >Harry Pollard wrote: > > Detroit made more money from replacement parts than from their cars - > > until the Japanese arrived. Then competition from those who made a > > $100 profit a car, rather than Detroit's $1,200 forced them to rethink. > > > > Also, the Japanese cars were better as well as cheaper. > > > > Nothing like a little market competition to cut down corporation excess. > >Then Detroit discovered the SUV, enabling them to make a $10,000 profit >a car for crappy hardware. (Even $15,000 for the GM Suburban SUV.) >And guess what, the Japs copied that too. Even the Euros copied it, >because it's such a great cash cow. But wait, aren't the consumers >(which you say you love so much) being ripped off by selling them >overpriced, accident-prone crap with much higher running costs (i.a. fuel >consumption) ?? And aren't all people being screwed with much higher >air pollution and cancer rates by those SUVs ? (a SUV with 10 mpg emits >about __40 times more__ cancer-causing particles than a conventional >non-diesel car with 40 mpg) > >Car manufacturers have a choice: either jump on the SUV bandwagon or >go out of business. Makers of previously popular light/solar vehicles >can go packing because in the "arms race on the road" ignited by SUVs, >people grab for rolling fortresses in order not to be crushed by others. > >So much for the wonderful market competition. Which then continues in >the "health market" cashing in on all those cancer & accident victims. > >Maybe it has to do with the fact that America has the best politicians >money can buy. Competition even in the _market_ of politicians... > >Chris > > >_______________________________________________ >Futurework mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >_______________________________________________ >Futurework mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003 **************************************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 http://home.comcast.net/~haledward **************************************************** _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
