The key is that CRA did not require that you give out bad loans - quite to the contrary, it simply required that you don’t do “redlining” and that you offer loans under the same conditions you do elsewhere (ie, the same applicant could get a loan in any area you do business in, under the same conditions (loan-to-value, etc)). It in no way, shape, or form forced them to make risky loans… and again, CRA-regulated banks had far, far lower rates of default.
As for SCOTUS, one decision or two justices do not paint a proper overall picture. Sotomayor is certainly not conservative, but her rulings have been more conservative than Souter, who she replaced. Kagan replaced Stevens, who was the MOST liberal judge on the court. Alito is FAR more conservative than O’Connor ever was.
According to a NY Times analysis, the court has been issuing conservative verdicts upwards of 2/3 of the time, rather than barely over 50%, which was the case for the past several decades… they’ve also overturned prior rulings, despite their insistence in their belief in stare decisis…
“Not to stop a good discussion, but regarding the 56 mpg requirement - it could easily result in cars using MORE gas overall, because folks will hang on to their older low-mpg cars instead of buying new but expensive high mpg cars.”
That’s next to impossible. Given the limited life expectancy of cars in general, people are forced to trade. There is NO WAY you or I would allow our spouses to commute on today’s express ways in unreliable vehicles. Regardless, if the price of fuel rises, the public would clamor for high mileage vehicles.
Our last major national effort in the 70’s was halted by an immediate reduction in fuel prices and a gradual shift away from alternate energy focus. The ONLY thing that works is long term goals and govt. intervention. The idea that unregulated private enterprise is responsible for the major developments is bogus. In reality, a high % of our country could have personal travel for free within the next decade. Solar panel rebates for sunbelt residents attached to EV purchases is the kind of incentive that makes 50 mpg not only reachable, but passable.
We have the technology NOW. We just don’t have the collective will.
The indicator that we are not there yet is this sidebar debate about who is responsible for our present financial situation. Putting anyone but the top 10% who control the majority of the country’s wealth as a primary cause, is delusional. Blaming down is the safe way out for those of us not willing to compromise our narrow minded view of reality.
We the people CANNOT save. There is no instrument out there that gives us a % high enough to keep up with the cost of living, save the stock market which puts us in a position of servitude to the upper 10% who are the only ones who consistently realize a profit. That means low incomers are force into buying when their mortgage payments become less then their rent creating worthless instruments that only the top 10% profited by.
Eraser, according to the NY Times, and relative to the NY Times, EVERYTHING is too conservative. That’s an extremely liberal publication. There was just a new book published on the CRA and its contributions to the economic collapse. I’ll see if I can dig up the name of it for you.
Dag, I’l have to respectfully disagree that the only thing that will work is the type of government intervention we’re seeing. Force via might isn’t the answer. Investment is. The $4B that was earmarked for Cash For Clunjers should have been invested instead on development of an EV recharging infrastructure.
I’m not convinced that we have the technology yet to change average fuel efficieny across the board, but with proper support of EVs via investment in an infrastructure, I believe we will have soon. I truely believe that EVs will be commonplace in the not too distant future. Which, of course, is another argument to stop this rediculous ethanol subsidy program.
I like your idea for the sunbelt.
I sadly have to agree with you that the average working person cannot save in today’s economy.
The good news is that I believe the marketplace will drive the development of EVs, as it should. Remember that in Europe the motivation to develop usable EVs is fer greater than it is here. And what gets developed for that market also gets developed for this market.
mountainbike - you might want to check WHO for the NY Times wrote the article and WHO did the study that the article was reporting on. I honestly don’t know how someone can look at today’s SCOTUS and think that they were liberal.
“same” Respecfully, the market place will not and has not driven the development of the EV. Only government mandates. No one argues that 4stroke outboards aren’t the most economical choice but it was govt. Mandates for pollution control that made them common place. Had not govt. Mandates been retracted in Calf. we would have a viable EV with full 100 mile range now. Toyota, the most capable of marketing a cheap EV, has turned their EV future over to Tesla. Their profit is still tied to the ICE and will be for some time.
It has only been through govt. intervention that GM and Toyota with the fleet mileage requirements even dabbled in hybrids and faux par EV Volt. The market place is the “controlled” , the market place is not the controller. Gas prices are manipulated by the few countries with easy access shallow well oil who are willing to turn on or off the supply at the bidding of international political pressure which are controlled by international corporate interest. We show our thanks by allowing them to continue financing terrorism, market place and public preference be damned.
It happened in the 70s, it is happening now. “same”, you may not be old enough to remember the past :=), but that is my teacher…the marketplace is geared toward profitability not the public good.
The public in general is poorly educated, politically inept, and/or miss informed in many matters. Fast food chains, two stroke motors, SUVs for people who don’t need them and the “we don’t have a viable EV that can be made cheaply” are all profit making mindsets that only govt. Intervention can counter.
@keith, cars on the market right now have variable valve timing, and a few have fully electronic valve control (Mercedes though, the system they have is very expensive – but requires no throttle at all since they throttle it at the valves.) This gains something like 5-10%. The “diesel like running mode” is under development, GM refers to it as HCCI (homogenous charge compression ignition), and they figure it may gain 20%. There’s ot a 50% gain to be had from these technologies.
Anyway, I must agree I'm not for that extreme a MPG requirement -- I was quite displeased the car cos did not give a damn about mileage in the US for so long, but now they do, I think it's at least worth seeing what they do in the short term before requiring such an outlandishly high mileage. It's certainly possible to meet this mileage, but not while giving people a choice of what kind of car to drive -- nothing above a subcompact, no more sports or muscle cars, no all wheel drive, no station wagons, and so on (since, to sell one that for instance gets even 45MPG it means they'd have to sell a car that gets 67.4MPG to make up for it.) Prius-like vehicles aren't the solution, there are already battery shortages, it's just not practical to put that many batteries in every vehicle on the road.
I don't know how we got on the discussion about flat tax.. but all I can say is in theory it sounds fair, but in practice, it's really not. It takes a certain amount to keep food on the table, pay rent (or mortage or lot fee), power and water, no matter how tight someone tightens their belt... if someone is making $20,000 then taking 25% off that is very likely to drive them well below the point where they cannot pay the basic bills. It's a shell game, you'll tax these people, and it'll just force some who managed to avoid using welfare and so on right onto these programs.
Dag, you make some good points, but I’m still a believer that a change in focus for the government money allocated to the problem from mandates to investment would be far better. We made it to the moon with government investment, not with mandates, and out of that enourmous research platform came countless technical innovations and discoveries that flowed through and created other industries. Thin flm, high tech ceramins, highly engineered polymers, new manufacturing technologies, and countless other advances originate in space research, as di many many advances in medicine.
California actually has an EV with a 100 mile range, the Tesla. Two if you count the Fiska Karma, but that has an ICE/generator in addition to the electric motors.
Quantitative mandates can start the process rolling, and they have, but simply comtinuing to pump the numbers becomes counterproductive at some point.
MB - Yup…Agree with you that regulations and oversight in many area’s have gone way beyond helping us and are in fact hurting us…It’s a balance that at the moment is NOT tilting our way.
hwetrz “cars on the market right now have variable valve timing, and a few have fully electronic valve control (Mercedes though, the system they have is very expensive – but requires no throttle at all since they throttle it at the valves.) This gains something like 5-10%.”
I am aware of the BMW and Nissan systems, I am unaware of Mercedes doing anything in this arena as is Google, Yahoo and the lackeys that put together the MB web sites.
Neither of these systems have fully electronic valve control. They still use a mechanical camshaft. They have some marginal control over valve lift and duration, but they cannot change the basic profile of the cam. They just move the cam either closer to or further away from the cam followers. They have some, but not much control over the valve timing or more importantly, the cam angle.
Both manufacturers had a choice when they started with this technology, they could use a basic profile for power or mileage, since these engines are limited for use in their high performance vehicles, they chose power.
I understand that they want to introduce new technology in vehicles with a small market share, like the 370Z etc. because they can work out the bugs with less liability in the marketplace. That is, fewer vehicle if a recall is needed and fewer disappointed customers. Hopefully, when Nissan migrates this technology down to the Altima/Sentra segment of the market, they will adjust the basic profile more toward mileage. Still 10% is a start.
The only way to fully realize the advantages of a fully electronic valve control is to get rid of the camshaft altogether. As for increasing the cost to make these vehicles, a move to an all electric, computer controlled system could actually lower the cost to manufacture these engines. The parts count could be dramatically reduced, and no timing belts or chains to break. This could turn out to be a win/win for all of us.
“…a change in focus for the government money allocated to the problem from mandates to investment would be far better.”
But that assumes the government knows what projects and project managers are best suited to attain the goals. In markets like medicine where there are many suppliers and project costs are low, it works fairly well. In areas like space technology, there are not many suppliers and projects can be very expensive. If a new (to the market) supplier is chosen, they’ve just won the lottery. And not because they have a proven track record.
Project costs in medicine are astronomical. And competition in the space industry is robust. Well, at least it was until recent years…
I doesn’t quite happen the way you’re thinking. What actually happens is that a specification package is put “out to bid” and providers with the appropriate expertise submit competative proposals.
“I(t) doesn’t quite happen the way you’re thinking.”
Yes, it does. That’s my business (aerospace). But the point is that when a customer tells the supplier what to build, it stifles innovation. Maybe there are several ways to dramatically increase fleet mileage. If the government provides money to build just gasoline hybrids with a 500-volt metal hydride battery, then we miss alternatives. In the case of fleet mileage, I don’t mind a mandate. I think that 56.2 MPG in the next 13 years is difficult if not impossible to meet, but if we all drive our Suburbans and F-350s to the grocery store, we’ll never get there. I wonder if in meeting the goals, trucks like those I mentioned will be banished from the product line? I mean for private use, and not business.
I understand your meaning. However the intial design process that ultimately creats the design package is defined strictly in the goals of the project. The point where the detailed package to which you’re referring is put out to bid is after the product has already been designed, qualified, validated, and all the secondary and tertiary specifications attached.
For example, I worked years ago on a light-off detector (LOD) for the afterburners of the F-15 engines. The initial spec defined the physical interface parameters, the total mass, the desired output signal, the desired response time, the voltage and maximum current available, and the characteristics that would trigger the response (the afterburner flame spectrum and parameters), as well as the total environmental envelope (to a secondary spec; sand/dust, thermal shock, heat endurance, cold endurance, heat/vibration, etc. etc.). From there we designed, developed, qualified, and validated the LOD. That DOD-480 controlled design package then went to bid for manufacture. The government had paid for and owned the design. We did these both for Pratt & Whitney and GE. Each had totally different design requirements and each ended up with totally different designs, even though both made engines for the same planes.
Back in the mid-'80s the government even tried to have P&W and GE manufacture the other’s designs, in a push to create a competative process. One of them sued (can’t remember which) and the courts found that the government had paid for the designs and could bid them out however they wanted. The experiment was actually a failure, because P&W and GE use entirely different approaches to integrating their seconadard and tertiary specs into the design packages, and those specs are considered proprietary. The provided one another with the design packages, but one would go to order parts to the others design and the vendor would say “um…that part is up to rev C now, would you like your rev A that you asked for or the rev C that your competitir is using?” It was a nightmare.
In short, the innovation happens at the beginning. By the ttime a design gets to manufacturing it’s “nailed down”. But the innovation steps are open to bid as well.
My company has a small division that does work for the Military and the aerospace industry. When a NEW product is being designed and built…the government agency asks qualified contractors to bid on it…Each may have their own design on how to achieve the requirements…The requirements are set by the government…but the design to achieve those requirements is up to the company.
Then when a final design is approved…and manufacturing begins…yes then the company building the product must meet the government design standards.
Same…"California actually has an EV with a 100 mile range, the Tesla. Two if you count the Fiska Karma, but that has an ICE/generator in addition to the electric motors. "
I agree. But the effort in the 70s was to get major corporations on board with their high production/low cost capabilities so these things would not cost $100k per copy. Mandates were/are necessary. When subsidies are used, pricing is not reduced substantially.
The govt. need not tell how companies are to achieve 50+mpg, just mandate it and let free enterprise find it’s way.
It works in pollution control where a large number of jobs were created along rivers and shores and the fishing and tourism industry flourished along these water ways. A local city saw a dramatic growth in it’s down town business when the river and streams that flowed in and around it reduced it’s pollution level, all because of govt. mandates. I see mpg standards in the same light. Pollution control stimulates the economy and job growth. Every study has shown healthy environments are a magnet for job growth.
I live on a lake and thank goodness there are mandates for 2 stroke use, run off and pollution. It’s the will of the people saying " we want a cleaner more efficient environment" and not big brother speaking, as “fear mongering corporate wealth at all cost” people would have you believe.
“The point where the detailed package to which you’re referring is put out to bid is after the product has already been designed, qualified, validated, and all the secondary and tertiary specifications attached.”
I disagree. The bidder designs the product (more or less) during the evaluation. Then they qualify and validate the product as they build it. If it happened the way you describe it, the sponsor would have built it without any help.
Mike: That’s what I have observed. Even when the product is not new. Operational assets are rebid occasionally and the new supplier improves on the last iteration. At least that’s the way it usually works (in my experience, anyway). And actually, they ask anyone to bid on it. Eventually, they determine whether the bidders are competent or not. There are contracts that must be awarded to small businesses or minority-owned businesses. Some of these are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Those that win just won the lottery. They typically have little past experience or the the required employee base that would allow them to perform properly on the contract. They pick up the folks that worked on the last one and sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn’t.
JT, the design and develpment contracts and the manufacturing contracts are seperate and apart. I’ve bid on and developed way too much DOD (and NASA) stuff to acquiese to your theory. Federal law requiress that these contracts be put out to bid. The winning bidder gets paid to develop he product. That was the whole crux of the legal argument when the feds had P&W and GE swap engine design packages. The court found that the feds had paid for the development, therefore they own the design package.
The whole minority owned business problem is a quandry of its own. I’ve met with numerous “minority owned” businesses wherein the “owner” had no idea what went on in the company and knew nothing about the product. Yes, “fronts” of this nature are dishonest. Yes, they’re also not uncommon. And most people don;t consider them unethical, just a trick to satisfy the government’s “minority ownership” requirement. The feds like it too, because they can get the product from a firm they like and meet their political obligation.