Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: How did we get 40-50mpg cars?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 23, 2011, 2:35 p.m. EST by JoeTheFarmer (2654)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Was it government regulations? No. Was it government planning? No. Was it social engineering? No

It was free market capitalism that gave birth to these cars. In a sense, it was corporate greed that brought them about.

93 Comments

93 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by norcal45gpw (10) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

Guess what? In 1978 the VW Rabbit DIESEL was getting an honest 46-48mpg (I had one). Then, the Gov decided it didn't want diesel cars....mileage went down and it took 30 more years to get back up over 40mpg.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The Ford Fiesta got 40 mpg on regular too. The problem was back then is that they only had about 100 horsepower. You had to get out and push going up a hill if you had people in the car. A slight exaggeration but I had one...

Now these 40-50 mpg cars have 140-150 horsepower and are not tiny tin cans. We are progressing and government regulations have nothing to do with it.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

My Grandma says there used to be street cars in LA until the car companies managed to get rid of them.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

+100 for this

[-] 3 points by randart (498) 2 years ago

I had a 1996 Saturn that got 40 mpg on the highway. There should be cars that get 100 mpg by now.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Science doesn't work on a smooth continuum. If you could change people so that they wanted it you would be more likely to have it. When I say change people so that they want it I mean get most of the car buying public to want to buy fuel efficient cars. You or I may want one, but too many people want SUV's, trucks, high powered cars.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

If they could squeeze more out they would to beat their competitors. You can only squeeze so much out of an internal combustion engine. Those Saturns only had 100 horse power so going up a hill was embarrassing if you had more than one person in the car.

The newer engines pump out 155-170 horse power and still get 40 mpg. Hybrid systems are getting close to 60 mpg.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

If you're gonna "wish" something to be true, why stop at 100 mpg?

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

Sure, and it had a 125hp engine and the whole car weighed something like 2,500 pounds. People don't want that. There's something like 250 individual models of cars for sale. It's intensely competitive. If people want it, it'll get made. By 2000, gas was damn near free at only $1/gallon. People wanted size and performance. Even now, with higher fuel costs, people still on balance want size and performance.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

We have inefficient cars for the same reason we have everything else. It's what the majority actually wants. A representative form of government could mandate the car you could buy, but those reps. would find themselves out of a job next election.

[-] 1 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

So you want the government to tell you what car to buy, what house to buy, what school to go to, what job to have, etc? I personaly don't want the same poor excuse for a government to tell me how to live my life. The government is not there to make mandates it's there to protect our rights that is all.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Demand always has to come first if you want a successful product. The hybrids and electric cars will sit there until you change the minds of a majority of the people.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Hybrids are not really practical. The battery technology is not there yet. The total cost of ownership is still too high. They get better mileage in the stop and go city traffic. So they are good if yo live in the city but if you live in the city you do not really need a car.

We are also finding out that electric cars are not getting miles per charge advertised. It is kinda like a cell phone, after a year the battery does not last very long on a charge. The batteries also use toxic chemicals and their production is messy.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26867) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes electric Hybrids should be much better then they are. I had a 2002 Honda Insight, and I averaged 45mpg in rush hour traffic and got combined elec/gas use average of 800 miles per fill on a 10 gallon tank, My best mileage was 65mpg while cruising on the freeway. But I think this kind of car should be a stop-gap anyway, until we get Hydrogen fuel/power underway.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

amazing how honda does and has sold hybrids without any gov subsidy , has no problems with them, there are many on the roads, they get 40-50+mpg, and oh, lets not forget toyota too

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Don't forget Ford the number 3 top selling hybrid is the Ford Fusion.

Personally I would not by one. My Ford Fusion gets 36 mpg and it is not a hybrid. My problem with the hybrids is they cost a lot more to own. You have to separate drive trains to maintain at the auto shop and an expensive battery to replace in 5 years. We also are finding that the batteries are not lasting as long as promised.

My hope is they will perfect a natural gas vehicle. We only have about 100 years of oil reserves and there is enough hydro-methane under the gulf of Mexico to power everything for 10,000 years.

In the end I believe hydrogen fuel cells will be perfected and rule the road. Who knows what other sources will be invented.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

I agree. The good news is that we can create all the synthetic fuel we want to as long as we can make a lot of electricity, and LFTRs can do that for the next 500-1000+ years, all we have to do is build them.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Yes I agree, new technology takes time to refine and develop properly. Most of it just isn't ready from the consumer's point of view, considering the problems you mention and what the price is.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Consumers seem to know to avoid the newest technology too. Especially when it's so much more expensive then a time tested product.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

People have to want what you are selling. I had a used Chevy Geo that got 35 to 40 mpg city, depending on the time of year and my best was 59 mpg highway. No one really wanted better mileage, they want bigger, faster, heavier.

The small, light, high mpg cars were only there to meet the government requirement for average fuel efficiency. Not enough people want them. If people demand it you will find someone to make it. When the government does it in reverse you get the Volt, $39000 PLUS a government subsidy that works out, at present, to $250000 EACH.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Yes and now people want them. Today you have the Ford Focus 40 mpg 146 horse power comfortable ride or the Honda civic with similar specs. Two of the most popular cars in the world. These cars are fuel efficient and have power and torque to get you going. not because of regulations but because people want them.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Exactly! It will improve more in fits and jumps as those cars sell.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Oh course the demand preceded the corporate greed, it would have to unless the corporate execs are good at predicting the future. Some were better at it than others. Chevy and Chrysler execs were definitely not as clairvoyant as some of the others.

http://www.onlydrivegreen.com/greenvehicles.cfm?Green=High+MPG There are more high mileage cars in production today then there ever was before. Even non hybrids that get 40 mpg.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MaryS (678) 2 years ago

I inherited an an older model Prius from a friend who just got a 2011 model. Filling the gas tank costs $19 instead of the $43 my old car was drinking. The tank was full on Dec 3rd and I didn't go buy gas again til Dec 20th. Very happy camper here. I can't wait for the electric cars to come down in price. Supposedly cheaper batteries are in the works.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

You act like 40-50 MPG is good!?

Electric cars have been a reality since around 1900.

Jay Leno owns a 1907 Baker Electric that STILL RUNS!!!

Why don't we have electric cars anymore?

Was it government regulations? No. Was it government planning? No. Was it social engineering? No

It was free market capitalism that destroyed the electric car. It was corporate greed that destroyed our environment.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I listed 40-50 mpg cars because they are common. You can but one that gets 60, 90, and 112 mpg.

WE DO Have Electric Cars!

How did we get them?

Was it government regulations? No. Was it government planning? No. Was it social engineering? No

  1. Chevrolet Volt
  2. Nissan Leaf
  3. Ford Focus E
  4. Honda Fit
  5. Toyota FT-EV
  6. Mitsubishi I
  7. Tesla
  8. BMW-E
  9. Infiniti ZEV
  10. VW Golf Blue Motion

Not sure where you have been but those are just the top 10 models. The great thing is they are developing Fuel Cell Electric vehicles.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

And it only took 100+ years to bring them back.

100+ years marred by countless bloody wars over oil.

Way to go corporate America.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The problem is that before lithium batteries were invented electric cars only made sense if you lived in the city. If you lived in the city you really do not need a car.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Spoken like someone who's never had to haul laundry or groceries on a bus.

[-] 1 points by Mattholck (51) 2 years ago

Following the 1973 oil crisis, compounded by the 1979 energy crisis, American consumers began to buy fuel-efficient, low-cost automobiles built in Japan

The manual transmission provided acceleration of 0-60 mph in 10 seconds, while the automatic was between 13 and 14 seconds, similar to or better than most competitors, while gas mileage was rated by the EPA at 26 mpg city, 41 mpg highway with the manual transmission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_K_platform

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Exactly, the car companies will build the cars if people want them.

I was around when those tin can cars existed. I even had one in 1979. They were 100 horsepower or less. We almost had to get out an push going up a hill when I had three friends with me. The new cars are around 150 horsepower and get the same gas mileage. We have hybrids that get 60-80 mpg.

[-] 1 points by Mattholck (51) 2 years ago

hybrids technology has not produced in inexpensive model

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

That is true and I would not buy one at this point. The cost of ownership is higher too. The point is, the car companies are building them for those who can afford them and want them so teh demand must be reasonable.

Laptops computers used to cost $5,000 now you can get them for $300. As technology improves it gets cheaper.

[-] 1 points by randomchaos (1) 2 years ago

We could have had engines that run forever a long long time ago. It's likely they already do, In fact one of the cleanest generators in the world was invented 200 years ago http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/refs/solar/Stirling.pdf

Everything mass market was planned a long time ago. The best inventions were not made public but kept from public conciousness. What we have now is an bunch if greedy people ruining life for everyone else. www.robertstirlingengine.com/history.php Check the years this guy was alive.

This is not a solution to cars, but there are alternatives and there are much better tehnologies than we are lead to believe.

[-] 1 points by orz (83) 2 years ago

If they can't sell cars that factor in the price of gas, then people will move to cities or build trains. They're responding to demand, using every shortcut possible to increase and sustain profit.

Say global warming is true. A 'free-capitalist' (which doesn't exist, they need laws and guns to uphold the trading) would sell a city like New York a coastal management project, in return for ongoing funding. If the people refused to pay the tax, the city would eventually flood.

I would rather have the cities and trains now, which, in part, would help to prevent further global warming. But this goes against profit-potentials. So, there's nothing altruistic about the example of greed you're defending.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You are free to live in a city and take the train. I prefer to live in the country on a farm. |

I did not say anything about altruism. I said that the want for profits is an engine give us great new products that makes our lives better. I would not call it greed but if you choose to fine. It still works.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/electric-car-goes-1000-miles-on-a-single-charge-breaks-world-record.html

http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/25/car-prototypes-kids/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rprfWfgnFc

Btw, the only reason we were able to keep up with the soviet union in the space race was because funds were re-allocated from military ventures to the production of space vehicles. If left up to the 'free market', space would have been dominated by the Soviets.

And if a company was brave enough to survive the assaults of the oil industry + their political cronies, supplemented it with the usual b.s. advertising campaign, and release a working vehicle that got 400+ miles per gallon they'd dominate the market or force competitors to release better vehicles.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Yea 1000 miles on a perfectly flat track with a seat for one person and tops out at 28 mph and takes a few minutes to get there. All cools stuff however... Not very practical.

As for the space race and the money we all wasted on it, the X-Prize has proven that private industry can make it to space for one tenth the price

You cannot market any of those cars. The reason the 40-50 mpg cars are selling today like never before is because they have 50% more horsepower and twice the torque as their predecessors in the 80s and 90s

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

Oh I get it, so you want one of these. :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV4QK-NJEEA

The private industry has updated technologies (publicly available) today. A single Furby has more computing power than sputnik... In reality we could have easily accessible VTOL and space vehicles if technologies and resources weren't rationed through the market. But most people accept these self-imposed cultural limitations.

And a piece of half eaten pizza can be marketed (just look up some of the nonsense sold on ebay). Advertising campaigns are specifically designed to create artificial values so people waste their money buying products they might not otherwise.

I recommend this video for more information on how the monetary-market system influences society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Yes I want one of those. Will you get it for me.

The video was about genetics. It is silly to say that genetics has nothing to do with behavior. How does a spider know how to make a web? Why does a bird who never saw it's parent make a nest build on exactly the same as the rest of that breed? Why does my dog (a Shetland sheepdog) herd the neighborhood kids, even as a puppy, but will not retrieve a stick or ball or go in water. My neighbors dog a lab retriever does not herd.

Yes environment does affect the outcome, I could train my dog to retrieve but after three years of trying I have failed. My neighbor did not have to train his dog at all to retrieve.

Your genetics affects how your body processes chemicals. An over abundance of certain chemicals will affect behavior. I worked in a children's hospital for 10 years. I worked with kids that had Lesch-Nyhan syndrome. Their genetics somehow causes then to exhibit self destructive behavior including chewing off fingertips and lips, if not restrained. They also exhibit social destructive behavior by saying fuck you I hate you to someone they like or love. A woman with a brother with the syndrome has a very high chance of having a child with that syndrome.

His argument that because I can affect development environmentally means that genetics have nothing to do with it is not sound. Of course environment affects behavior but you cannot rule out the huge affect of genetics because of this.

Check out these two interesting videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZoKfap4g4w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

The video discusses genetics only for the first portion of the video. And he displays it in relation to society as genetics is often used as the excuse to maintain the status quo in society.

Creatures that can learn are very strongly influenced by their environment. Working in the hospital you probably understand that people with certain genetics don't always express them unless placed in a certain environment. e.g. Members predisposed for heart disease don't always get heart disease if they maintain a healthy diet and lifestyle.

If man's "nurture" (often referred to as nature) were stagnant we would still be living in caves. The importance of this for the monetary-market system is that man is not necessarily competitive nor collaborative by nature. These behaviors for the most part are learned and reinforced by the environment. But due to synergy collaboration is much more rewarding.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

The only reason Gasoline is 350% higher than what it should be is due to the FED printing money and causing inflation, nothing else. The price of gasoline is actually very stable, its the devaluation of the dollar that has caused its rise. If the dollar was made stronger, gasoline could return to $1.00 a gallon. People would still want 40-50+ MPG vehicles just as they did in 1999

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 2 years ago

Uh wrong every year the goverment regulates that the average fuel mpg of car companies must be a certain level and it keeps slowly going up, also emisions standards are regulated by the government , we had really shitty 12mpg cars when I was growing up with leaded gas....then the government banned leaded gas and raised mpg requirements that is why we ended up with 40/50 mpg cars not because the car manufactureres thought it would be nice to do

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The gas guzzler tax only applies to cars with less than 22.5 mpg and we have cars with 40-50 mpg so your argument does not hold water.

Also the tax did not include minivans, sport utility vehicles or pick-up trucks.

So it was actually it was people wanting fuel efficient cars that caused manufacturers to create more of them.

[-] 1 points by Satyr000ART5 (12) 2 years ago

You all need to sit down and watch Who Killed the Electric Car. Its an eye opener and shows just how far of a reach big oil has. http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The gas guzzler tax only applies to cars with less than 22.5 mpg and we have cars with 40-50 mpg so your argument does not hold water. Also the tax did not include minivans, sport utility vehicles or pick-up trucks.

So it was actually it was people wanting fuel efficient cars that caused manufacturers to create them

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I guess I just believe people are smarter than you do. It what you are saying is true, and people are that gullible, the worst form of government we could have is Direct Democracy.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

We do not have democracy we have a representative government with a bicameral legislation. We are a constitutional republic.

It is a great system. Yes there are flaws but we are still on of the top ten countries in the world politically, socially and economically.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Coward!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You walked away not me. You came back because I called you a coward so my strategy worked. Perhaps I am smarter than you think!

I believe education is important for those who want it. The issue is that you cannot force it upon people. Many attend school in body but not in mind and spirit. It is my experience having attended college and graduate school that most in attendance not truly engaged. Most are there for the degree and not so much for the education.

It is not that I don't think people in general are smart enough or could not be educated; I don't think many want to be, especially when it comes to current event (besides what Brad Pitt and Angelina are up to)

I vote in every election and there are Direct Democracy questions on every ballot. I always vote after dinner near the close of the polls. I always ask “what was the turn out” and the volunteer always tells about 21%. It is always near 20% except for every fourth year, the presidential year. And that is only 21% of registered voters so the turnout is actually lower.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Just going to school is not enough. And thinking you can take any curriculum and be guaranteed a job is silly. My engineering classes were small however I took humanities courses as part of my curriculum. They were in lecture halls with 75 people. About 10% of the students knew or cared what was going on. I remember the teacher asking a question and saying "anybody but you three" pointing to me and my two engineering friends. We were engineering student and we were out doing the liberal arts students in a humanities course. I my second year I decided to take honors humanities courses and even then only about half the class really cared about what we were learning.

I went to school for engineering because I liked physics and mathematics. I wanted to design things. Fortunately I chose a path that was in demand and only a few wanted to take that path.

"Two roads diverged in a wood and I.... I took the road less traveled by and that has made all the difference."

-- Robert Frost

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

and it's corporate greed that will take them away.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Well gee, I had a 63 plymouth valiant 2 door with the little slant six and three speed, it easily broke 40 mpg as long as the tire pressure didn't get low. I had several Ramblers that did as well and know for a fact that if you replace the huge wide tires with skinny hard ones, on a 409 horsepower modern vette, it will easily break 45 mpg with moderate driving.

Motorcycles? It amazes me how many people have bikes that they think is phenomenal it it breaks 50 mpg. Cd or not, that is pretty much unacceptable and wasteful as far as I'm concerned.

I have WWII era motorcycles that did well to return 35 mpg when new, that with a bit of knowing and doing, are now nearly twice as fast and better than twice as fuel efficient, none of which requires electronic sophistication, which of course, would yield even better results.

In 1971, US car manufactures went backwards towards making engines more efficient and cleaner, they dropped the compression ratio to 8.5 or lower, and then took a long time to learn how cam profiles, ports and chambers can work together much better than merely turning a capable engine into a slug with many emissions capturing/reducing band cv cv aids.

High efficiency cars are nothing new, not in the US or abroad.

Hell, come to think of it, I had an exceptional Yugo, went 150K without any major failure, that did indeed return 50mpg, a Triumph Stag with the V8 and Lucas injection that also would return 50mpg with sane driving inputs.

I will have to ponder how many others, but, there have been many.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Absolutely. Somewhere out there someone is working for fifty cents an hour, in a factory that produces CO2, to build them. But look at us... we're clean as a whistle.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

dude it certainly was not because they wanted to. car manufacturers and big oil have been sleeping in the same bed for years. remember they killed the electric car years ago...

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

It was because they wanted to sell cars. No one forced then to make them more efficient. Free markets work. People want high mpg so car companies make them. No government involvement needed.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

ok if you want to be ignorant perhaps you should look into who owns and runs the auto industry and big oil. free markets don't work adam smith clearly illustrates this in his writings however many fervent capitalists have failed to even read the founder of capitalism's works but thanks anyways for your hackneyed comprehension of economics....

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

GM, Toyota, Honda, Ford, KIA, Mazda... are not owned by the oil companies. They want to sell cars. People want efficient cars. Whoever make the most efficient car with the most horsepower and good reliability will sell more cars.

Free markets brought us the iPad, Kindle, Nook, $5 foot longs, $1 menu meal, smart phones, Call of Duty 3, LED flat screen TVs, $300 laptops, $6.99 for 12 pairs of socks, the low energy washing machine, LED lights, 3D TV... the list goes on and on...

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

and you are wrong the free market didn't bring us these things. scientists, engineers, and inventors brought us these things, men of vision brought us these things, men of ingenuity... the free market didn't have shit to do with it people did. and not business men and bankers, hedge fund managers, and day traders they had nothing to do with the advancement of mankind at all...

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Scientists, engineers, and inventors are part of the free market. They work at companies that are privately owned. These companies are free to innovate and compete with each other. It is the competition that fosters innovation. Only a free market system provides this competitive environment. Centrally planned systems always exhibit the least amount of innovation because central planning is basically a monopoly..

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

no man they are people... i can't explain to you all of the intricate nuances of our current free market system and how it is constructed and employed with out wanting to bash my head into the computer screen. however let me ask you if the free market is such a bastion of ingenuity and invention and these are the things that spur innovation please explain to me how rich nikola tesla became because his innovations were a result of his desire to capitalize on capitalism.... please please please i am dying to know.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Are you saying since scientists, engineers, and inventors are people they are not free? That does not make sense.

You need to be more than smart. You need to market your ideas. The best example of this is the difference between Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs. The Woz was more like Tesla and Jobs was more like George Westinghouse or Ben Franklin. Without Jobs, the Woz would still be in his garage.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

no i am saying free market capitalism does not encourage development of the best new ideas and theories and i am saying money is not the driving impetus for the formulation of new ideas and theories that you try to make it sound to be. jonas salk did not invent the polio vaccine for profit he gave it away for free he spent all that time and money and just gave it away he didn't market a thing but you know what he is known the world over for his act of generosity and human compassion steve jobs on the other hand is known as a fucking douche bag asshole..... http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/supreme-court-of-assholedom-the-people-vs-steve-jobs-20111116

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

That was a bunch of gibberish. Rolling Stones politics blog. There is a great source for political and financial expertise. That explains a lot about your commentary.

Case closed

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

and actually matt taibbi is recognized as one of the few journalists with a good grasp on the complex financial shenanigans that precipitated the financial meltdown. your write off of matt is the typical right wing reply "but he writes for rolling stone" is nothing but a strawman... not once has any one been able to disprove his journalistic integrity or veracity as a reporter that is why you guys hate him so much. because he speaks the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i challenge you to disprove his sources or his assertions on any story...... YOU CAN'T....

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

no, you just don't like having your world view blown apart by a stranger on a computer screen, a thousand miles away, i understand completely and actually matt taibbi is a highly respected investigative journalist his employer has been recognized as a leading voice in political commentary since hunter s thompson and is the only mainstream publication with enough guts to print the amazingly revealing investigative journalistic stories matt taibbi writes... if you knew your head from your ass you would know that.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I did not right of matt for any reason besides that article you linked was gibberish. He is only where he is because his father was a four time Edward R Murrow award winning NBC reporter.

That article was titled Supreme Court of Assholedom: The People vs. Steve Jobs and then it talked about Thomas Edison who I agree was an ass. There were no facts presented, no data, just a bunch of Steve Jobs is an asshole because Thomas Edison electrocuted an elephant. Just about every electronic device has parts that come from China.

Suddenly Jobs is the king of assholes because China has loose laws regarding child labor? There were eleven 15 year old kids in one of the factories in China that makes parts for Apple. That factory also makes parts for Nokia, Motorola, and many others.

I started working when I was 15. My daughter got her working papers on her own and started working when she turned 15. She wanted to work.She just turned 16 and has a savings account.

Matt Taibbi appears to be a biased journalist.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

no he is an asshole because he cared more about his bottom line than people and it seems according to people who knew him well that he compromised all his morals and ethics to get where he got and yes just so you know child labor is wrong, exploiting people is wrong just cause it is legal doesn't make it right, he is an asshole because he had so much and gave back nothing... he exploited people and he will be remembered by those who knew him as an asshole as i am sure you will be as well.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

your right there couldn't possibly be cross ownership between big oil the auto industry and hedgefunds.... what are you fucking stupid.....

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

No, it is you who is fucking stupid....

The CEO of GM, Ford, Toyota... is responsible to his shareholders. The CEO and Board of Directors needs maximize profits and working capital. It does not benefit Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford, to make a less efficient car if people are focused on mpg. His compensation including his bonus and stock options is based on profits, working capital, and safety at Ford.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

you are ignorant keep telling yourself, "joethefarmer" that he has a fucking clue of how market capitalism is working in america today. if they are only responsible to the shareholdesr than why do they screw their shareholders all the time? like for example explain ceo's Dodging investors angry over the pay received by Home Depot chairman and CEO Robert Nardelli, who took home at least $120 million over five years as the company's stock price dropped 12 percent, Home Depot's board fails to show up at its annual shareholders meeting.

The session is presided over solely by Nardelli, who sidesteps all questions ("This is not the forum in which we would address your comment") and cuts the meeting short after half an hour. The event's negative fallout, highlighted by demonstrators wearing chicken costumes and orange Home Depot aprons, leads Nardelli to announce days later that, for next year's meeting, "we will return to our traditional format ... with the board of directors in attendance." explain again how ceo's don't screw over shareholders.....

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

That's just nonsense. I have a very powerful car myself. Honestly, I don't care what sort of mileage I get. When I hit the gas, I want the car to go. And if I get hit by someone else, I want to survive. Huge numbers of people didn't grudgingly buy their SUVs, they love them. Ask someone with a Suburban. Really, you think they're going to tell you something like "Yeah, the bastards made me buy this!". Come on.

The car companies steadily made them bigger because people wanted them bigger. They're more powerful too. A new SUV is way faster than most cars from 1985. Truly, smarten up.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

you and people like you are why we are all doomed to hell on earth with in the next 20-50 years. thank irresponsible assholes for equating greed, ignorance, and stupidity with the economic and political structures of capitalism. your total misrepresentation of how the markets function in their current state and by proxy most likely your total misunderstanding of the world constructed around you. pull your head out of your ass before you kill us all.

[-] 1 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

Sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with a mental patient. As you were.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

really insults are your only argument how truly pathetic. you and all your self serving, self centered conformist brat friends are destroying the world and the only thing you are concerned about is yourself and your own convenience. "Honestly, I don't care what sort of mileage I get."--- you are a plague upon the the face of the earth, you are a plague among mankind why don't you do us all a favor and kill yourself before you kill us all.

[-] 0 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 2 years ago

I have a 1997 Toyota , that with some of my fuel injector pulse width mods, electronic timing advance control by altering cam/crank signal, altered tire size, larger throttle body, exhaust mods, I am achieving average of 47MPG. I also had a Chrysler Sebring V6 Convertible, factory was 24 MPG, I got 38 MPG after similar mods..Held that economy until accident, had 262,000 miles with original drivetrain. Every system can be fine tuned..It is all computer control, matter of altering signal voltages to engine controller. .I have the skills to do it, why don't they? It takes a lot of time, but it can be done.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

They do have the skills and they are doing it. That was my point. They are cranking out high mpg cars these days. There is a huge list of them

[-] 0 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 2 years ago

If I apply the same mods to the newer vehicles , I guarantee I can squeeze out a few more MPG, not with the hybrids, but with the others.... Things like variable valve timing, displacement on demand, etc have all been great innovations.. There is still more to be had, airflow / exhaust flow, electrical signals can be modified after break in, to facilitate even more. I do not disagree with you - citing personal example with older technology - some of the mods are electronic, and require a "tuning" after the car gets older and efficiency dwindles...I did not reply to your post, the one before, your post leaked in some how...We both replied to the same post from PandoraK at the same time!

[-] 1 points by Shule (2030) 2 years ago

Wow, that is really cool! How is your acceleration and performance in general after those mods?

[-] 0 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 2 years ago

Actually better....But every rose has its thorn, if you stuff the pedal all the time, it will be slightly worse than it was originally. The power is increased at normal throttle range, better response, acceleration with less pedal. So if you drive with feather foot to moderate you get the best of both worlds. Heavy foot, and you lose a MPG or 2 over factory....But you do get "seat of the pants" feel. To add I have a 4cyl Chrysler turbo in Dodge Rampage, gets 40 MPG w/o foot, but gets 12 if you stuff it @ 30 psi boost - 350 HP over the factory 150, It all depends on your foot! I drive around town and its great, I got the power of a V-8 when I want it, but it does drink if I stuff it. I have been modding/programming fuel injection controls since early 90s I even built an injector lawnmower!

[-] 1 points by Shule (2030) 2 years ago

Cool.

[-] 0 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 2 years ago

I forgot to mention, that the Rampage needs 100-110 octane fuel to be set at that level...That is a bit hard on the wallet nowadays.....