Electric cars

It doesn't seem to work as well as it might have done in the USA. Educating women has an even bigger effect on birth rate than income, and the USA does seem to fall short in this area. I'm aware that the USA educates men and women equally well but - as evidenced by a lot of the comment that gets posted on this user group - the US education system can prove inadequate for both sexes.

I'm not arguing that the US education system fails everybody - even amongst the US posters on this user group there are people who do know what they are talking about, and don't post about stuff about areas where they are ignorant - but it certainly seems to fail far too many people.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Unless you advertise it vigorously

1973:

So the government is the biggest protection racket in town. Very original. The anarcho-syndicalists had a slightly better solution, and it probably does come close to a true optimum. Unfortunately it isn't a Nash optimum, in that cheats can do better for themselves by cheating in one way or another. The solution we've actually got comes tolerably close to the optimum - despite Harry Browne's logic - because it does inhibit a lot of the cheating, but nowhere near all of it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Why do all that, when you can just tax the final consumer of a product or service, at the point of purchase? My company pays no tax on materials that we buy for resale, like electronic components; we pay sales tax on things that we actually consume, like tools and beer.

The major advantage of VAT - to governments - is that it hides from the consumer how much tax he is actually paying.

Why tax adding value? Tax consumption, which is destroying value.

John

You seem to be competing with AlwaysWrong in being always wrong... apparently for the same reasons.

US fertility rate is about 2.13, just about replacement. Our population growth is being driven by immigration.

Wrong again. Walk through a university campus here and see.

I'm aware that the

Get a job.

John

Unfed trolls tend to die off.

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

  Only Jerks Need to Satisfy Their Woeful Egos by Feeding Trolls

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Those that aren't PAYING ATTENTION.

So? I don't expect a car to be armor against collisions. One heavy enough for that SUCKS TOO MUCH GAS,drives like a barge. Harder to park,too.

Small cars also make you be more attentive,because you may get crunched by some landbarge or tank.

BTW,my Integra;2600 lbs,got nailed in the front by a full-size SUV and only suffered a crunched left fender;parking lot collision on the exit road.She was speeding and probably distracted by her 2 small kids.I removed the fender and pounded the crunch out of it,repainted.

I learned to drive in my dad's 57 Caddy Fleetwood,a massive car,so I'm no stranger to landbarges. Owned a 63 Dodge Polara,too,my only big car. But even at my advanced age,I prefer small cars;they make more sense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

James Arthur wrote in news:OKlgl.654$ snipped-for-privacy@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

unfortunately,the trend today is to make vehicles taller and narrower,even the compact cars.

But,"big" means more material and more weight.More cost,too.

you must love this Lovins,you refer to him so much. ;-)

Agreed;A big,heavy car/SUV/light truck has less margin for error and is not as forgiving.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Charlie E. wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Heck,a decent 4 seater small car is fine. My 1968 English Ford Cortina(GT) was a great car,had it during the 1973 gas crisis,when they rationed fillups to 10 gallons,which didn't bother me in the least. (Wish I coulda got the Lotus Cortina! DOHC!! a screamer!)

the Honda Civic had a hatchback model in the late 80s-early 90s that seated

4 very comfortably,had more interior room than many "large" domestics,and had room for your groceries,too,and got great mileage,all on a 1.6 liter motor.you could even carry a TV in it,thru the hatch,rear seats folded down. No sloth,either,and low emissions.I still see them on the road today.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

krw wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.individual.net:

The consumer pays ALL the taxes;businesses pass on taxes as part of the cost of doing business. even VAT.

Lawyers and CPAs.

It s a FACT that lower taxes -raise- tax revenues. People have more of their own money to spend or invest,and businesses profit from both. If gov't gets the money,they WASTE most of it.

Heck,the US Gov't couldn't even run the House and Senate lunchrooms. The less money we give them,the better off we are. We need to stick to the essentials in Gov't;defense,Judicial,etc.,not social programs.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

James Arthur wrote in news:xKpgl.727$ snipped-for-privacy@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

Here's a quote from an unknown person; when liberals want things to actually work, they start acting like conservatives. It means that liberal policies can only exist if the country is strong enough to sustain the damage done by liberal policies.

agreed!

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

How well do they work at -20F?

How is the heat pump going to work at -20F?

EMployers don't have electricity for tank heaters or battery chargers now. You're going to demand they have charging stations suitable for all parking spaces?

I suspect there might be an downturn in that tax revenue curve *somewhere* before you hit zero taxes, Jim. :-)

And of course maximizing tax revenues is not necessarily what the government is supposed to do, just as many private companies purposely choose not to maximize their own revenues: Sometimes maximizing your revenues means giving up other attributes you value that don't directly translate into cash.

Obama claims he's going to try to reduce waste in government... as has pretty much every other president over time.

"Joel Koltner" wrote in news:XUsgl.222073$ snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-08.dc.easynews.com:

Let's be sensible,here. I never said anything about zero taxes. "lower taxes" does not equal zero taxes. Looking back,the US was most successful before the Income tax was enacted.

Obama SAYS one thing,and DOES something else. (too bad the Obamaniacs can't understand that.) Just look at his current "position" on gun control,and his actual past voting record and past statements. there's no gun control law he didn't vote for.

Obama fully intends to INCREASE Federal government,and that requires more money.

Just wait for his civilian Internal Security Force... (AKA BrownShirts)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

I know, hence the smiley.

Yeah, but so did Bush and Clinton, etc... I suppose Obama might end up being worse in this respect, though...

Naw, I don't love 'im. He comes off as a bit of a snob, and stretches his points here and there. It's not all quite as easy as he says.

But he is super smart, he's thought a lot about this problem, and his website _had_ a lot of useful info and common sense. The info's mostly gone, but that Stanford video lecture series I mentioned is really excellent.

My take-away message from it was: there are several, easy ways to increase fuel economy, without sacrificing, without the need for big breakthroughs, but SUV-buying consumers simply haven't cared until now.

Even greater economy is possible with new attention to weight and materials.

I just find it cool--inspirational--to encounter such simple engineering solutions to seemingly intractable societal problems.

The lecture on industry is similarly inspiring. Much could be saved with just a few simple changes, like eliminating sharp bends in pipes, oversizing ducts, and using more efficient blowers.

I don't mean to champion Lovins, just cherrypick his ideas.

Cheers, James Arthur

Very well. Problem is they're waayyy too expensive.

James Arthur

Even the Mars rover worked in deep sub-zero temps. Of course, there is no water on Mars to speak of to the point of it condensing on anything.

Well, there are always places in which a certain vehicle doesn't make sense. If you are in an area that is regularly -20F, then you probably also don't see many convertibles or motorcycles, right? What, you DO see them? But they are so impractical at that temp, no one in their right mind would get one... 8-)

And, employers DO provide such things in those areas, at least good ones do. Or covered parking or other amenities when they can.

Actually, I expect cities to get into providing charging stations that double as parking meters!

Charlie

Charlie E. wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Once you start driving,the heat generated by the electric motor may be used to provide interior heat. That doesn't provide for defrosting current for the back window or initial defrosting of the front. That's where a hybrid electric auto is more practical.A small gas or diesel motor will heat up quickly.

A company providing charging outlets essentially is paying for your power usage.They may not be interested in doing that. I suspect most companies will not do it for free,or not at all.Just the initial cost of the wiring and outlets is something I doubt most companies will provide,particularly in today's business climate.(economics,tight profit margins)

Covered parking may just be the result of city regs requiring employers or commercial buildings to have enough parking spaces for the employees.Like making them build a parking garage.

They may not be able to afford the installation costs,and desire to move you into public transpo anyways.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net