Individual wrongs v. common rights

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 1 2007, 04:04 PM) [snapback]488856[/snapback]</div>

I actually agree with all of that!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Aug 2 2007, 01:09 PM) [snapback]489349[/snapback]</div>

Talking points? Try reality.

The sole purpose of a corporation is to maximize the value of the investment of its stockholders. Corporations are, by law, given the rights of immortal persons. However, these are a special kind of persons, which are designed by law, to be concerned only for their stockholders. Corporations do not have a moral or social conscience, unless of course their shareholders approve one.

The great problem of having corporate citizens is that they aren't like the rest of us. As Baron Thurlow in England is supposed to have said, "They have no soul to save, and they have no body to incarcerate." I believe the mistake that a lot of people make when they think about corporations, is they think that corporations are like us. They think they have feelings, they have politics, and that they have belief systems. However, they really only have one thing, the bottom line - how to make as much money as they can in any given quarter. That's it.

 

Interesting discussion. Somewhat predictable.

We've seen the "people have the right to make choices that we must respect argument," and the "we have a moral responsibility to/for each other argument," and also the "It's not as bad to have an SUV if I use it to tow things," argument - countered with the, "Needs are really wants, argument,"

I would like to point out that, all the people of world need to attain roughly the same standard of living eventually - y'know if we want justice and political stability, etc. And it must be sustainable - the standard of living I mean. Someday, being able to own a SUV might not be possible, because if 9 billion people can't do it..... well hopefully you get the idea...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 11:03 AM) [snapback]488590[/snapback]</div>

I think you are confusing Comunism with Socialism. Comunism being the most extreme version of Socialism.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(donee @ Aug 2 2007, 08:28 PM) [snapback]489672[/snapback]</div>

No, I fully understand the distinction, thank you. A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 11:00 PM) [snapback]489030[/snapback]</div>

Nope, I'm not going to tell you that. I did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I only put faith in corporations following the money trail. Toyota developed hybrid technology explicitly for the purpose of being well positioned as the future would only bring higher gas prices, lower gas availability, and more traffic congestion.....but even then it was only at the pushing of Eiji Toyoda. My point is that the money trail leads to electric vehicles. Tesla is going all out to get something out before the Toyota and others catch on. Likewise, the first adopters of electric vehicles will discover the outstanding advantages as others pay for their mistake of not learning.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FL_Prius_Driver @ Aug 2 2007, 08:49 PM) [snapback]489681[/snapback]</div>

Amen. I am right with you on that. All I was saying is that Toyota didn't develop its hybrid technology for any altruistic reasons. It developed its hybrid system because they saw the technological shift coming and got out ahead of the curve.

Anyone who thinks corporations, Toyota included, act altruisticly is sorely mistaken. You don't need to look any further than Toyota's recent announcement that it would stand with GM, Ford and Chrysler to fight the proposed new CAFE restrictions to see that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 3 2007, 02:48 AM) [snapback]489680[/snapback]</div>

I think you just made that confusion when you said "you can always go live in a socialist society where the right to choose is totally taken out of the hands of the individual"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Aug 3 2007, 02:52 AM) [snapback]489832[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, but I expected that most people would pick up the nuances of the argument that I was making. Socialism is a system of the ownership and operation where the means of production and distribution are owned by society rather than by private individuals. For those of you that missed it, I was clearly talking about the means of distribution, which takes choice out of the hands of the individual.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bill Merchant @ Aug 3 2007, 02:36 AM) [snapback]489827[/snapback]</div>

Of course, in typical American fashion, most of the people surveyed are hypocritical in their answers. They want limits, but not on their own behavior. They will tell you that people shouldn't drive Suburbans, but then turn right around and justify why they need one. Everyone sees gas consumption as problem; they just don't see it being THEIR problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Aug 2 2007, 02:35 AM) [snapback]489140[/snapback]</div>

Aaagggh! What has happened here? Nothing to argue with vtie about!? Now I'm scared. I'm in agreement with all your stuff here. Especially the part about the role of government. Yes, they are are supposed to be tasked with protecting our commons... and they're doing a very poor job of it. I'll get to the other "free market" post below. On the SUV stuff - I can't speak for others, but when I speak of "SUV" I do speak of the "class" of car that is huge and insanely wasteful. The Hummer, Excursion, Escalade. I don't count the X3 or the Rav4 or other little stationwagons that try to look like SUVs. The SUVs that I speak of are the ones that weigh enough to put them out of the passenger vehicle category (6,000 pounds), yet are still used as such. The "evil" SUV is the Hummer that is used as a single-person freeway commute vehicle.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Topgas @ Aug 2 2007, 04:06 AM) [snapback]489152[/snapback]</div>

I would so love to have the free market take care of this. And I have no doubt that it would! However...We have never experienced a real "free market" in civilized society. A free market requires that we pay for the results of our actions. In the case of driving wasteful cars, that is not the case. Yes, you pay a bit more for gasoline when you drive a guzzler. You do NOT pay for the damage that your wasteful vehicle inflicts, however. One thing we do know is that "sitting back and watching" simply continues the status quo and digs us deeper into the hole we find ourselves in. You are right on about money and crisis. And that is why making the price of gas painful is likely the only way to turn things around. With gas as cheap as it is, there is no real consequence to driving a wasteful vehicle for vanity. Want to drive a wasteful car? Ok.... but pay $8-$10 per gallon like much of Europe does and see how happy that Excursion makes you now.

 

My parents just told me they paid E 1.42/l so that is roughly E 5.20/gallon which with current exchange rate is $7.17

I think the only ones who could claim some altruistic payoff are the Prius drivers who bought the car for environmental reasons. Altruism is kinda like receiving spiritual or emotional payment for a deed. This does not translate into shareholder profitability so of course there is a profit motive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 09:37 AM) [snapback]488668[/snapback]</div>

Amen.

However, I would like to add that much of Europe is still in love with performance cars just like the US, cars that get the same or worse mileage than our SUVs and trucks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 2 2007, 05:58 PM) [snapback]489684[/snapback]</div>

They are fighting a particular set of CAFE standards, but supporting a second set, so don't try to paint a picture of the industry trying to shoot down any and all change. The automakers have generally been increasing fuel economy gradually despite making larger vehicles with more power, capability, and features. http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/426721_web.pdf

GM CAFE for light trucks

1997 - 20.5
1998 - 21.2 (up)
1999 - 20.3 (down)
2000 - 21.0 (up)
2001 - 20.7 (down)
2002 - 21.2 (up)
2003 - 21.3 (up)
2004 - 21.4 (up)
2005 - 21.8 (up)
2006 - 21.7 (down)

Toyota CAFE for light trucks

1997 - 22.6
1998 - 23.5 (up)
1999 - 22.9 (down)
2000 - 21.8 (down)
2001 - 22.1 (up)
2002 - 22.1 (same)
2003 - 21.9 (down)
2004 - 22.7 (up)
2005 - 23.1 (up)
2006 - 23.6 (up)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 01:37 PM) [snapback]488668[/snapback]</div>

Not sure where you got the 22 and 26mpg. The new EPA for the 2008 Tahoe is at best 14 City and 20 Highway. The old EPA is listed at 16 City 22 Highway.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 05:20 PM) [snapback]488812[/snapback]</div>

You are right that for some families owning a larger vehicle is more reality than choice. However, I don't think it is most. My sister-in-law had an Expedition . However, they certainly made use of it, transporting four kids (two of them teenagers) and their friends. Sure there were times when it wasn't a full load, but more often than not. Course, they could have gotten a minivan and gotten about 20% better mileage, but all in all it was a wise choice for them. As far as your example though, depending on the SUV, 3 trips to Home Depot would have used the same gallons and been burning it cleaner. One could also pay the delivery fee for the few deliveries that most people do or rent a truck for a day.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 05:20 PM) [snapback]488812[/snapback]</div>

The problem is that up until the last several years, the cost of owning a SUV was not that much more (beyond the higher price tag). Some families who may have bought that SUV when gas pries are $1 to $1.50 are having trouble now that it is almost $3. I know a family at work who are feeling this pinch, but they are upside down in their vehicle and don't feel like they can afford to take the hit of downsizing. Whether they can or not, I don't know the exact picture. I wonder how common this is? At any rate, even though they pay increased taxes for roads, but what about the increased emissions/pollution in the air? Naturally this is something we all should pay for, not just SUV owners.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micheal @ Aug 3 2007, 10:33 PM) [snapback]490303[/snapback]</div>

Those are the estimates for the new 2008 Chevy Tahoe Hybrid.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TLS @ Aug 3 2007, 07:23 PM) [snapback]490212[/snapback]</div>

So, in 10 years, they increased their CAFE standards about 5%. Do you really see that as an improvement? Heck, most of the 5% can probably be attributed to better aerodynamics.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TLS @ Aug 3 2007, 07:12 PM) [snapback]490208[/snapback]</div>

True, but even in Europe, a much smaller percentage of the population owns performance cars than do SUVs and trucks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TLS @ Aug 4 2007, 01:12 AM) [snapback]490208[/snapback]</div>

Hmmm... I can assure you that you see far less Porsches and Ferraris on European roads than you see trucks and large SUV's in the States... They are a marginal phenomenon and usually don't drive a lot of miles. In 2004, the average fuel efficiency of all new cars (including the rare SUV's and trucks) sold in France was 38 mpg (US gallons), and the trend is positive.

The EU will soon impose a limit of an average CO2 emission of 140g per car brand, and will go down to 130g (I believe in 2010). It's actually interesting to watch how the industry is trying to prepare itself for that. Over the last 3 years, BMW cars have gained an average efficiency increase of around 15%, without any compromise on the power of the engine. It's miraculous to see what can be done if you put a little squeeze on...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TLS @ Aug 3 2007, 04:12 PM) [snapback]490208[/snapback]</div>

Exellent. I'll divide my cat's poop in thirds now and send your portion over the fence so I can share my rights with you as well. Anbody else want their fair share?

I suppose that smokers should also have their "right" to smoke at the table next to me in a restaurant, ruining my meal so that I don't impose on their rights.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Aug 4 2007, 05:23 PM) [snapback]490634[/snapback]</div>

And, just why should your rights supercede those of others? If you don't want to smoke, then don't, but at least have the common decency to allow others to engage in the activity if they so desire. It is not up to you, or the government, to save people from themselves.

Actually, restaurant owners should have the right to allow smoking. You, as a consumer, then have the right to choose to patronize the establishment or not. Last time I checked, there wasn't any law which compelled non-smokers to enter an establishment which allows smoking.