HTTP 404 Not Found

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(catgic @ Aug 1 2007, 10:57 AM) [snapback]488706[/snapback]</div>

Looks like autoweek got a beating by Toyota's avertising money, and decided to take it down...

Found a copy of the full article cut/pasted by another forum.... http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=512664

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(catgic @ Aug 1 2007, 11:57 AM) [snapback]488706[/snapback]</div>

The auto industry also bawled when the government required cars have seat belts, when they required airbags, and also the last time they raised fuel standards (which was 30 years ago).

One of the reasons we're in the mess we're in right now is because the govenment passed energy bills where those "owning the FE-technology" had too much say! The Levin-Bond Fuel Economy Amendment of 2002 is criticized as the "let's do nothing but say we did" amendment by environmentalists and, indeed, the legislation that Michigan Senator Carl Levin passed with the help of his constituants in Detroit has had pretty much zero positive change since its passage.

Our government is finally doing what it was supposed to do, which is to not let special interests/automakers define our energy policy.

That said, as a matter of history, Toyota also fought hard against the electric car mandate in California back in the day. Although they make the Prius and several other environmentally friendly cars, Toyota isn't any more innocent in its lobbying than GM or any other manufacturer.

Kind of a rhetorical question here ...

but why do corporations get to have any say in what those leaders who were elected by the people want to do?



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Boulder Bum @ Aug 1 2007, 04:50 PM) [snapback]488939[/snapback]</div>

IIRC the mandate was worded really poorly, the idea was to have zero emission cars, however it outlined that those must be strictly battery powered electric.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MikeSF @ Aug 1 2007, 07:17 PM) [snapback]488946[/snapback]</div>

One dollar, one vote. It's the American way.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MikeSF @ Aug 1 2007, 07:17 PM) [snapback]488946[/snapback]</div>

Because a moronic clerical error has allowed corporations the same rights as a person and the error has never been corrected. (Probably because of the monetary benefits to the corporations and the corporations make sure their political puppets maintain the status quo.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Aug 1 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]488733[/snapback]</div>

No, it wasn't taken down. The link was wrong w/the embedded periods. There's no way it could've worked as is.

See http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...1024/LATESTNEWS.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(catgic @ Aug 1 2007, 01:57 PM) [snapback]488706[/snapback]</div>

Ha, that's a laugh.

While polls do show that citizens realize we need better fuel economy, the Big Three certainly don't act like it. They continue to fight new CAFE standards so they can maximize profits by selling oversized gas-guzzlers. And yes, you can include Toyota in that unethical business practice.

Harry

Yeah, I know Toyota still makes, markets, and happily sells gas-guzzling SUVs. But unlike the Big Three, they also market a car that uses much less gas without compromising anything. Which is why I bought that car.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MikeSF @ Aug 1 2007, 08:17 PM) [snapback]488946[/snapback]</div>

You're kidding, right? Individual people can't pay for multi million dollar advertising campaigns ... Can they. Corps can. You can't. So when corps say it, long enough, loud enough, we believe the message, regardless of its truth. How many times do we P.C. members hear, "hey, what are you gona do when your batteries die?" Must be true, that the batteries die soon, because everyone says it's so. Same w/ what corps say in ad campaigns.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MikeSF @ Aug 2 2007, 02:17 AM) [snapback]488946[/snapback]</div>

Corporations have a say in what happens in this country (NL) via an official institution (apart from the usual lobbying). Three parties are part of this institution: government, unions and corporations. The reason: hurt the corps too drastically and the other two suffer (pay more social security/get less taxes and get fired/lower standard of living). All three gain from compromises that acknowledge the needs of all.

The institution (SER) as an advisory role, but their advice is not taken lightly.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 2 2007, 01:15 AM) [snapback]489094[/snapback]</div>

It wasn't a clerical error. Corporate chieftains got away with all kinds of nonsense before by saying that a corporation is a legal entity that exists on paper and, no human was therefore responsible. Once the change was made to give a corporation the rights of an individual, the corporate greedmeisters found new ways to get away with all kinds of nonsense. No matter how much you legislate, no matter how many dams you think you can build to stop it, greed is like water: it will find a way to get through eventually.

Increasing CAFE standards makes no sense as long as people keep buying gas-guzzling SUVs. What we need to do is to encourage people to buy fuel-efficient cars--hybrids or not. Buying SUVs is a fashion thing--our Honda Odyssey gets at least 50% better mileage than a Ford Expedition, and it has more room inside, so needing space is just an excuse to get the "image" that goes along with an SUV. If you drive an SUV, you are an action-type who barrels around in the rough all the time, right!

I started a topic on individual wrongs and common rights, based on a New Yorker article. Most people want higher CAFE standards, but they need that big Hummer to show they aren't wimps. The Hummer ads that were pulled were too close to the truth to sell Hummers.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bill Merchant @ Aug 3 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]489812[/snapback]</div>

That's so deliciously nasty for its truth. There are ways to prove that you aren't a wimp in this life, but how does following a trend, albeit a declining one (buying a SUV) do it? Joining the military might do it, calling Chuck Liddell a f*&*&( b(^*^& to his face would do it, if it might land you in the hospital for months. But buying a Hummer? If that's what a guy does to prove himself a man, there's no amount of steroids or Viagra that could help him. It's too sad that too few guys realize this...

Hi All,

I think Toyota learned a great lesson in the late 1990's. American car companies are buisness lazy, and will only implement product inovation on societal/governmental demand. As soon as Clinton/Gore left office, the Big three folded up their hybrid car development projects (and ford started its Hybrid SUV).

Why should Toyota let the advantage they be taken away? As long as the US Government does not push the Big 3, Toyota will beat them easily. With the goverment CAFE mandate, the existing management of the Big 3 could be pressured out of their positions, and leaders with the capability to truly threaten Toyota would replace them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Aug 1 2007, 10:36 AM) [snapback]488695[/snapback]</div>

READ the article, and the other dozens like it that have appeared the last few months.

They aren't battling any change in CAFE standards, just the particular ones that have been suggested. The industry wants different, still stringent standards.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TLS @ Aug 3 2007, 07:40 PM) [snapback]490220[/snapback]</div>

The Detroit 3 are the ones who stand to gain the most, or are the neediest, so their being involved in the fight against even the most modest improvements in fuel economy isn't a surprise. That Toyota is involved too isn't a surprise either when you remember that it's a corporation that exists to make money and create wealth for shareholders. They build cars to make money but they just do it a lot better than the Detroit 3 ever have.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Boulder Bum @ Aug 1 2007, 06:50 PM) [snapback]488939[/snapback]</div>

Word.

[senseless rant]


Innovation and true progress doesn't happen by accident. A hard and immovable mandate must be be set for actual change to occur: say hello to my good friend lunar landing.

I'd say force them to hit 35 by 2010. Put the screws to them in the most brutal sense, and outlaw the rampant gas-guzzling bull that is being foisted upon us as necessity. Change the discourse. Put a little discomfort into the hearts and minds of the gigantic corporations.

It only takes a little effort to make a small change well ahead of the future, a gigantic sudden effort is needed to make that same change a day before the crunch. Everyone has been dragging their feet for the past 25 years...time is running out...

[/senseless rant]