On the other hand, I stop by every once in awhile, so it’s not impossibly so.

re your last post: The US IS cleaner than 40 years ago, but the things that are cleaner are all things that were easily reversible and didn’t threaten civilization in the way that global heating and overpopulation do. Wealth is all good? I don’t see the good in 6,000 sq ft houses, or big SUVs, or corn syrup… I could go on and on. You have a lot of misplaced faith in markets. They work, but only when well-regulated. (By the way, when you cite that $1 trillion economy from 40 years ago, is that $1 trillion in 1967 dollars, or in 2007 dollars? I suspect the former, in which case it’s more like $5-$6 trillion–not nearly such a drastic jump.)

As for factors besides mass immigration dumbing down schools, again, California is 49th, and California has the highest proportion of south-of-the-border immigrants. I’m not disputing that other factors contribute, but when the daughter of a top flight hard scientist and a doctor is the star of the class and at the 35th percentile nationally in a class with 80% immigrants in a college town, you know something is way, way, way out of kilter.

Again, on climate change (beating a dead horse, here), the models I’ve seen from Holdren show clearly that it is anthropogenic. The reasoning is solid, not flawed. (Besides being last years AAAS pres, Holdren is a MacArthur fellow.) The insurance industry seems to agree as well. A handful of scientists out of probably thousands disagree, and if I notice that number rising steadily, significantly over the next few years, I will certainly take note, but I’m not holding my breath. I understand what you say about majority opinion–I know there was a time when most relevant scientists thought continental drift was baloney, but so far I haven’t seen anything to indicate that the dissenters have anything solid on their side. And by the way, one of the things about Holdren, unlike some of these climate warming skeptics is that he has no axes to grind. Like you, he’s strictly interested in what’s right. True objectivity is rare, but he is as objective as anyone I’ve ever encountered.

As for reducing carbon, assuming it’s partly anthropogenic, it’s so urgent that doing everything possible to slow it down is of the utmost importance ASAP. You’re certainly right about solar on the rooftops, but transportation is critical, too. I do like a carbon tax because it lets the market sort out what is most effective, but I’d also advocate subsidized weatherizing (I’m about to spend 5k to take my roof from R-maybe7 to R-40; but a lot of people can’t afford this sort of stuff) and maybe solar rooftops as well.

I doubt we’re headed for 20 degrees either, just because I do’nt think our institutions are THAT stupid. I do think we could easily have some major catastrophes, and that 3-5 degrees could do that.

You tend to emphasize the fact that climate is naturally variable. This is taken into account in the models. As for ocean pH, it’s trending towards levels not seen in millions of years.

Incidentally, when there is more than one possible and rasonable explanation for a phenomenon, and they are not mutually exclusive somehow, I tend to think that both are likely to be operating. You seem to be saying that no significant part of global warming is anthropogenic. Given the obvious physics behind the phenomenon, and the fact that we’ve about doubled CO2 in the atmosphere, your position seems a little… uh, closed minded perhaps? to me. I challenge you to consider that with an open mind, and let me know what you think after you’ve had some time to let it percolate. Again, my email, supernova1@aol.com, if you want to communicate after you’ve given this some time.
BEst, –David

At the risk of seeming pedantic, TTAC’s posting policy only forbids flaming the website, its authors or fellow commentators. Fourth parties are fair game– unless you’re trolling (i.e. “President Bush is an asshole”).

If a commentator wants to call Bob Lutz an idiot, he or she may do so as Mr. Lutz does not work for this site or use its comments section.

I know it seems hypocritical that the gloves can come off in an editorial but not in a comment, but there it is: TTAC’s posting policy.

Again, you’re free to disagree violently with any idea expressed on the site, but you cannot personally attack the specified trinity.

Anyone who feels constrained by this policy, and wants to throw some fireballs, may do so in an editorial.

It’s not a perfect policy (what is?), and its subject to my own personal/subjective idea of what’s acceptable, but so far, so good. Both myself and many members of this community feel safe, comfortable and engaged. And that’s because we enforce our policy without fear or favor.

Given that the editorial policy of TTAC specifically reminds commentators to “make their point without personally criticizing this website, its authors or fellow commentators,” I find it rather hypocritical that you have published Mr. Swanson’s editorial, which clearly violates your own guidelines. To review, Mr. May is:

1) Intellectual Agility: Slow
2) “always happy to take an analytical shortcut”
3) “incapable of the intellectual rigor…”

Seems like personal criticism to me. Regardless of your opinion of American cars or English food, (I don’t like either) what has become a Matter of National Pride would have been avoided altogether if Mr. Swanson’s piece were subject to your own editorial guidelines. I wonder why it was not.

GM would be insanely profitable.

I just have a problem with painting a corporation with such diverse products as GM with one giant brush. I know Katie may not have meant the Silverado and Corvette, but when someone comments on a company’s ability to sell its “rubbish” what is the lay person supposed to infer?

We’re having a discussion on whether or not TTAC is unfair, among other things, and this commitment has to extend to the commentators as well otherwise the value of the debate contained here is debased.

Wealth absolutely solves environmental problems because it increases the resources available to improve efficiency, clean up prior problems and implement cleaner means of consumption. I don’t worry about the supply side of wealth. That is, consumption is OK. Markets regulate consumption.

Look at the US. In 1969 the Cuyahoga River caught fire, Lake Erie was declared “dead,” and air quality in major cities made your lungs hurt. I know, I made the transition from a rural area to an urban one every time I went to a baseball game.

Now, almost 40 years later, we have progressed from a $1 trillion economy to a $13+ trillion dollar economy. Air quality is much better in urban areas in most respects, people can fish and swim in Lake Erie, rivers are cleaner and we’ve recovered many polluted locations. Contrast that with the huge pollution problems in poorer countries (China, India, Russia, for Soviet Republics, former East Germany, much of Africa) that could not / cannot make those investments. Wealth is ALL good. I don’t think anyone can argue sensibly that the US is cleaner and on a much better environmental vector than 40 years ago, while dramatically expanding its economy, and growing its population. Consumption is a misplaced concern. Markets will work their influences. I am certain if our wealth had stagnated, that the US would have made much less progress becoming cleaner.

Moreover, mass immigration does dumb down our schools.

Generally I agree. But I also have to point out two things: 1/ Our schools were being dumbed down well before the modern wave of immigration. This really began when teachers widely unionized, and when too many Boomers flooded college elementary education programs and standards dropped. 2/ Our education system’s response to immigration has been ham-handed. From school boards to administration to teachers, there has been a general spiraling down of average competence in these ranks seems common. I can’t say this empirically, but observationally I’ll stand by it. There is a third key element and that is the loss of intergenerational consensus on supporting education through appropriate taxation.

Perhaps this is where I should also point out that I fully endorse toughening enforcement against illegal immigration, but I have no bone to pick with anyone who won entry legally.

You’re assuming the absolute best in a world where the wealthiest country hasn’t been able to summon the political will to raise the fleet average from something like 21 (real) mpg although we could easily double that. If people were as sensible as yo make them out to be we’d have a carbon tax by now.

Well you already know that I don’t believe a carbon tax is useful or appropriate, and I do not believe climate change is anthropogenic. So raising the fleet average fuel efficiency isn’t an environmental issue as much as one of economic policy. If we decided reduction of oil imports is a good idea for balance of payments, foreign policy or middle-eastern politics, fine…let’s have that debate nationally and sort out a policy. But as it stands, what you drive won’t have any effect on global temperature over the next 200 years. Carbon tax? No.

Moreover, if we were serious about reducing carbon, transportation isn’t the place to start. Stationary power generation permits immediate investments in carbon sequestering. Solar power could be massively subsidized for rooftops now. These things could have real benefits in 5 years. Changing the auto fleet takes decades. Creating land use, water problems and food displacement by growing corn for ethanol wouldn’t even occur to people. The political follow-through on climate alarmism is nonsensical and revealing of the real control agendas behind many of its proponents’ actions.

one reason so many Mexicans come here is that their government has a deliberate policy of encouraging their poorest to emigrate

And that “safety valve” is a good thing for us. As is NAFTA. The last thing we need is Mexico in chaos on our southern border.

You’re failing to see the world from the point of view of the deprived Americans. see comments above re labor supply and wages.

You don’t know enough about me to say that. Suffice to say I’ve been alot closer to “deprived Americans” than you might imagine. It’s possible, you know, for someone to see the world from that perspective and come to different conclusions than you have.

On Holdren: I can’t comment on his integrity. I assume he’s honest and intelligent. It’s just that these two assets don’t correlate to being correct. Science, history, academia are all replete with hyper-smart people being dramatically wrong. Same is true with majorities. Majority opinion isn’t persuasive to me in matters of actionable science. I’m not interested in *who’s* right, only in what’s right. I believe Holdren is sincere in his AGW advocacy. Unfortunately, that by itself isn’t persuasive. His position only earns him a right to be thoroughly heard.

Under “business as usual,” Holdren predicts as much as 20 degrees’ warming by 2100.

And, by the way, are you aware of the problem of ocean acidification? the pH is already changing, and if this keeps up, there won’t be any fish left in the ocean.

I am confident we’re not headed for 20 degrees average warming. And I am aware of the ocean acidification problem. This is also a naturally-fluctuating phenomenon. But the key matter in all of this is whether climate change is anthropogenic. If it is, then some of the research is actionable. If it isn’t, then we’re wasting time and resources in the wrong place. I don’t believe global warming is anthropogenic (put another way, the reasoning for AGW appears deeply flawed and I am not persuaded), but I do believe we have to adapt to a changing world. I’m a lot more worried about managing water.

Phil

Phil,

You make it sound as if this increased wealth you foresee will somehow solve environmental problems instead of making them worse. But as I’m sure you realize, Americans use a lot more resources than Mexicans, and Mexicans who come to live like Americans make the problem worse. Also, re your comment that seemed to imply that I thought Mexicans are lazy, I don’t. But I don’t think they are harder working than anyone else, either. But I can tell you that any normal person, if they could suddenly make 5-10 times as much money for the same labor, they might well work harder because of that. But importing third world labor because they will work harder for lower wages than Americans should ever have to even think about accepting is not a sustainable solution to anything.

Moreover, mass immigration does dumb down our schools. A friend who is a top hard scientist in the Boston area told me that when he was teaching at UC Santa Barbara, he was appalled to find out that his daughter, then in 3rd grade, was in the 35th percentile nationally in math. He went to see the teacher. Not to worry! he was told. His daughter was the star of the class. And California, which once had pretty good public schools, is now 49th in the nation. And yes, yes, I know, there are other things that can contribute. But when schools are being overwhelmed with foreign students who come from countries that don’t have a tradition of education–his daughter’s school was 80% immigrant–this outcome is not surprising.

The old “Era of Limits” handwringing again. 35 years ago we were projected to be in famine and out of oil by now. Worry less, please. We have a lot of waste still to wring out of global consumption. American distributional efficiency spread elsewhere by itself can solve alot of problems associated with alleged “unsustainability.” We only have to manage another 3 billion people before population peaks. We’ll get through it.

You’re assuming the absolute best in a world where the wealthiest country hasn’t been able to summon the political will to raise the fleet average from something like 21 (real) mpg although we could easily double that. If people were as sensible as yo make them out to be we’d have a carbon tax by now.

3,000,000,000 more would be a 50% population increase. Take off the rose colored glasses, please.

(ME) And mass immigration makes the most deprived US workers poorer. From 1980-1995, the wages of US citizens who had not completed high school dropped by 30%; half of that was due to mass immigration according to the US National Academy of Sciences.

We have a competitive system that doesn’t guarantee income short of welfare. Immigration has resulted in a net increase in domestic wealth, but some people fall behind if they are not willing to climb the ladder.

On the contrary. Mass immigration is costing us billions for medical care, education, incarceration, and more. I can’t remember the precise figures, but something like 40% of Mexican immigrants are on welfare, compared with a much smaller number of native citizens (source, George Borjas, Harvard U). Many hospitals, something like 60 in California, have closed becuase they got stuck with the cost of caring for indigent immigrants (source, NYTimes).

Furthermore, Mexicans are pushing the poorest Americans off the ladder, because the Mexicans, used to earning about one tenth the pay for equivalent work, take lower wages than Americans, and the oversupply of cheap labor makes it easy for companies to lower wages. This is what happened when Walmart went into southern California, and started paying grocery clerks $7 instead of $17/hr. The same thing happened to the meat packing industry. This is corporate welfare through outsourcing by importing the cheap labor.

I do agree that helping countries help themselves is the first line of defense against our country carrying too much of the load for the world’s ambitious, but people who have the gumption to seek a better way are generally going to keep looking for a way into the places that foster success.

So they should come here, denying their countries their talents? Actually, one reason so many Mexicans come here is that their government has a deliberate policy of encouraging their poorest to emigrate. It’s a safety valve for an incredibly corrupt country. Mexico is not that poor in the grand scheme, but income distribution is terribly unequal.

I already do participate in micro-lending and have been for over 20 years. Before that I have done the equivalent via personal connections and I’ve been a Peace Corps volunteer.

That’s commendable.

I now live in Los Angeles and see every day that the “lazy Mexican” is a myth, and Americans made poorer by their presence generally should be looking in the mirror for the reason.

You’re failing to see the world from the point of view of the deprived Americans. see comments above re labor supply and wages.

(ME) The sun’s contribution to the current warming is quite small according to Holdren. The physics behind anthropogenic warming is indisputable. Holdren, among many other things, is a man of exceptional integrity.

The operative phrase there is “…according to Holdren…” His idea has expert detractors. The physics behind the greenhouse effect are indisputable, but that’s not the same thing as saying the physics of global warming are indisputable. We know of MANY things that warm and cool the climate, but we can’t model their complexity. We do know the planets climate has warmed and cooled on its own. The issue in contention is whether current warming is anthropogenic. People of high integrity disagree with Holdren; whether a majority or minority is irrelevant. Integrity isn’t correlated to being correct scientifically. You’ll notice that the majority of scientists retracting their support for AGW cite inability to correlate carbon content to what’s actually happening, as well as to what’s happened in the past before we (humans) were numerous enough to even be remotely considered a factor.

I think integrity IS correlated with being scientifically correct. Along with brains. And Holdren, as last year’s head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is certainly one of the most respected. Your retractors of support for global warming are a tiny minority. You also have a tiny minority of relevant scientists who believe in intelligent design, and there may even be a few medical scientists who think cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer. There are also people out there who think that 9-11 was a plot of the US government. There are always people who look at the world through warped glasses. Holdren is absolutely not one of them, but I would bet that most of your detractors are. Furthermore, Holdren’s view is that of the vast majority, but he’s not following the crowd. As I said yesterday, he’s worried about human-caused climate change since the late ’60s, long before most other people. Also, the models have greatly improved. (I can remember in his class, “quantitative aspects of global environmental problems,” learning about all the different factors that affect climate change, and calculating their influence.)

In any case, I’d much rather see us use our time and wealth to get coping strategies in place for climate change, because climate change in one direction or another is constantly inevitable with or without our presence on the planet.

The problem with this is that according to the models, if we don’t get a grip on things, the climae is going to change so much every ten years or so that a few of us may be coping while most of the world will be starving and dying. Under “business as usual,” Holdren predicts as much as 20 degrees’ warming by 2100.

And, by the way, are you aware of the problem of ocean acidification? the pH is already changing, and if this keeps up, there won’t be any fish left in the ocean.

By the way, if anyone on this list serve wants to keep listening to me argue with Phil, why don’t you say so. I’m writing this around midnight eastern the 24th. Phil, if no-one evinces an interest, and you want to argue with me some more, you can send your thoughts directly to me at supernova1@aol.com.

Sorry, but Charlie Wilson’s pithy, “What is good for GM is good for America, and vice versa,” is no longer the gospel truth, unless one works for GM or lives in Michigan.

Wilson’s whole quote was: “What is good for the country is good for General Motors, and what’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” He was walking a two-way street. This idea that buying from GM only benefits me if I live in Michigan or work for GM (or Ford or Chrysler) is the root of many problems in the United States, isn’t it? Personally, I consider myself American before Californian, and before Angeleno. Our economic choices are connected to the well-being of other Americans.

In a basic competitive system, there’s value to shared concern that reaches across states. I am willing to include that in my major purchases, and I don’t have to buy uncompetitive products to direct my leverage in Detroit’s direction. There were a few years in the 1980s when I couldn’t buy a competitive domestic car in a specific category, so I bought imports. But for 15 years I’ve been able buy completely trouble-free, competitive vehicles from GM and Ford with the only possible penalty being a reduction of superficial social standing from a group of people I have no interest to impress.

I’m interested in “accepted views” only insofar as they give me a basis to understand what needs to change. I act on my own view. We all agree the goal for the Detroit 3 must be to win on product first and foremost. But like it or not, now they need more time than their cash will buy them. The economic factors, consumer self-interest, citizen self-interest and basic community concern combined with cash and therefore time becoming short, make a more nuanced evaluation worthwhile. Yes, if everyone simply looks at their purchase as, “Hey, I’m just buying a car here,” then nothing else will count. But consumers have it in their grasp to assist the turnaround of the Detroit 3, for the good reasons cited. If buyer focus is on the competitive offerings from the domestics, this is entirely appropriate even for a market capitalist. I’m positing that when the perceived advantages favor the import and those differences are small, it’s not worth undermining the domestic economy.

Competition is essential and I don’t want government regulation to interfere. I am advocating consumer self-interest drive a more holistic view of their buying decisions and that people become more conscious about choosing how to use the economic leverage of their purchases. We have an open automotive market and there is room for plenty of imports. But the person who buys on social pressure, blind brand alignment or without understanding what any of the product advantages are either way could be buying domestically with no loss of satisfaction. I am sure there are more than enough of those people to put the Detroit 3 on their feet with the momentum to solve their non-product problems and compete on the merits, since that vector is already in play.

For example, the build quality of the 2008 CTS is very good, based on the two that the local dealer has on the lot. It is better than anything else in GM’s lineup, and looks to be competitive with foreign offerings. If one wants to buy an Escalade, however, one gets a vehicle that really isn’t any better made than a Tahoe.

That Tahoe is pretty well made, and the Escalade is materially better today. The new CTS is the first in a vehicle cycle that will see the rest of the line upgraded. I agree with AGR who noted that a BMW 3, 5 and 7 series have very different driving feel, despite the narrower platform deviance. A 7 Series has more in common with a large Benz than it does with a 3.

In any case, no import manufacturer has taken their car quality standards and extended them uncompromised to SUVs and trucks. A M.Benz SUV or a BMW X don’t have the build execution of their sedans. Audi gets closer. GM and Ford have actually pushed their trucks ahead of some of their cars, in some respects. Getting the Escalade aligned to the CTS’ build execution is not the first concern right now. More important to do the same to the STS and then the XLR-V.

The final product is either good enough to buy, or it isn’t.

The final product, if chosen well, is more than good enough if you as a consumer and citizen exercise the total economic and social impact of your purchase. Again, I am only advocating buying competitive domestic vehicles, not to subsidize failures.

…which is more “enlightened,” or at least a determination based on actual experiences, as opposed to prejudices?

I’ll climb out on a limb and say based on a few decades of observation in multiple markets that no more than 20-30% of import purchases are actually objectively information-driven. Relatively few are enlightened by anything other than hearsay and social factors that constrict the scope of cars they evaluate. It’s not that this is illegitimate. Lots of things are bought on emulation and reference. But there’s an option to do more. Such a buyer experiences a Camry or Accord or some such, somehow, and feels socially lubricated to buy. And frankly, this gets worse as you move into the luxury class, where peer affiliation is extremely powerful. If the number of people buying imports in their various guises actually had a bad experience with a Detroit 3 car, GM/Ford/Chry would have been gone long ago. Social momentum has been a big influence on the swing to imports, additive to the core problems of sag in domestic build quality, design missteps, and materials deficiencies.

And those who buy domestics are not primarily peer-driven in their purchases?

In cars, the domestic vehicle buyer is generally buying against social momentum, or no better than the absence of it. Peer-driven purchasing is still a factor in pickups, maybe in large SUVs like Suburban vs. Expedition. It will return in the upcoming ponycar battle.

I want my children to grow up in an economy that is receptive to new ideas, and rewards excellence, not one that allows excuses to justify mediocre performance.

Nothing I am advocating here interferes with an economy that is receptive to new ideas and rewards excellence. Excuses aren’t involved. It’s forgiveness for what’s passed and buying competitive product to give the Detroit 3 a chance to complete their change. I live in an sector of the economy that is all new ideas, nothing but. I want to see the next generations also grow up in an economy where people realize economic decisions have a larger context and carry available leverage that can help shape the world they want.

Phil

If you are referring to dash layouts, control, yes there is an overall consistency across the models.

It’s the accepted one, based on reviews by various publications – both online publications and old-fashioned print media.

The Accord is either better than the competition or it isn’t.

Since a variety of publications (and remember that Consumer Reports uses different criteria to judge a vehicle than Car & Driver does) are in agreement on how the Accord ranks compared to the domestic competition, I’m inclined to take their word for it.

This is the automobile business, not the first-grade athletic competition. Not everyone deserves a gold star just for showing up.

213Cobra: The real question is, if a vendor with more economic leverage with respect to your prolonged self interest has a good vehicle within a general trend of progressively improved competitiveness, is the slender advantage of a specific model available now from a vendor that erodes your prolonged self-interest worth the nod in your purchasing decision?

Sorry, but Charlie Wilson’s pithy, “What is good for GM is good for America, and vice versa,” is no longer the gospel truth, unless one works for GM or lives in Michigan. It’s not 1955 anymore.

Buying Hondas and Toyotas encourages those companies to increase their design, engineering and production presence in the U.S.

This exposes American workers, businesses and suppliers to new practices and ideas.

For example, Honda and Toyota have a much different method of dealing with suppliers than the Big Three. It would benefit American businesses if these practices spread throughout the country. (Surveys regularly show that suppliers prefer to work with Honda and Toyota, as opposed to one of the Big Three, because of the approach those companies take to dealing with vendors.)

They also have different approaches to developing vehicles, setting CEO pay, and managing worker relations, all of which, quite frankly, American business would benefit by studying and adapting in one form or another.

Given these facts, the “holistic” approach will not necessarily lead to the purchase of a GM, Ford or Chrysler product. The transplants are transforming the way the American automobile industry does business, and it benefits the Big Three and the UAW to adopt those practices. If anything, it benefits all of us if more businesses adopt those practices, as they improve quality.

Unfortunately, as history has shown, the Big Three and the UAW don’t make changes until their backs are against the wall, and even then they change only grudgingly. Your approach only encourages more of the same from the Big Three and the UAW, and lots of us have had enough of that.

Finally, the advantage of the Accord over most of the competition is more than “slender.”

213Cobra: Today, this is an issue. I am saying it is far smaller than you claim and that the platform diversity does not preclude enjoying Cadillacs, nor in evaluating any one as competitive. I nevertheless expect the product development path at Cadillac to progressively address this. In the meantime, I’ll buy.

It hampers the brand’s efforts to forge a strong brand identity. The new CTS looks great, but, unfortunately, if one wants to move up, there is no guarantee that Cadillacs higher up the totem pole will provide the same level of quality and performance relative to the competition.

For example, the build quality of the 2008 CTS is very good, based on the two that the local dealer has on the lot. It is better than anything else in GM’s lineup, and looks to be competitive with foreign offerings. If one wants to buy an Escalade, however, one gets a vehicle that really isn’t any better made than a Tahoe.

213Cobra: There’s reason to switch if alternatives are good enough and people are looking at the total impact of their purchase. As individuals we have much more leverage than we give ourselves credit for, if we raise our eyes and look beyond the product in front of us.

Translation: “We need to look at something else, because the product is either lackluster or uncompetitive.”

Sorry, but Detroit has relied on smoke and mirrors for far too long, and I’m not about to be an enabler.

The final product is either good enough to buy, or it isn’t.

213Cobra: But I don’t want existential threats to our domestic companies.

The main threat to their existence I see is their own arrogance and complacency, which has been successfully exploited by competitors.

213Cobra: I want enlightened consumers to holistically understand that buying the best of the domestics has real prolonged value to the economy in which they raise their children.

I want my children to grow up in an economy that is receptive to new ideas, and rewards excellence, not one that allows excuses to justify mediocre performance.

If a company keeps phoning it in on the product front, it deserves to die, plain and simple.

After all, it was a very famous 1915 Cadillac ad that said, That which deserves to live – lives.”

213Cobra: But enough of the import market share could move to domestics while fully satisfying customer needs and wants, except possibly the social drag of having to “explain” your choice to others who are primarily peer-driven in their purchasing.

And those who buy domestics are not primarily peer-driven in their purchases? Sorry, can’t buy it.

The idea that people who buy Hondas and Toyota are primarily driven by peers to make that purchase, and thus unfairly ignore domestic offering, just doesn’t wash.

Here’s how it usually happens – people either have a bad experience with a domestic, or try a friend’s foreign vehicle, and like it. They buy one, are satisfied, and buy another. That is the way that successful companies grow and prosper. Honda and Toyota follow this plan. The Europeans haven’t been as good at this, primarily because of poorer reliability (hence VW’s problems).

Interestingly, most people I know who won’t drive a domestic have taken that position because of poor experiences with domestics. Meanwhile, those who won’t drive imports have typically never driven one.

Which is more “enlightened,” or at least a determination based on actual experiences, as opposed to prejudices?

213Cobra: My reference to upsizing being easier than downsizing wasn’t a reference to company or business size, but to upsizing and downsizing of product in the car business.

Either way, one is not more difficult than the other.

AGR: They don’t all drive the same, these manufacturers make a clear distinction between the low line, mid line, and high line offerings, the low line cars are a lot tinnier in feel than the high line cars. The low line cars in North America are destined to a price / incentive driven market segment.

Sorry, can’t buy it. There is still more consistency in driving feel among various BMW and Mercedes models than there is among various Cadillacs.

When comments such as these go unchallenged and unanswered, then the allegations of bias are prone to fly.

Everyone should take pains to correct commentators on such overgeneralizing comments that lower the level of debate on this forum.

And, for the record, I do believe plenty of customers will be willing to purchase “rubbish” such as the Silverado and Corvette.

Therefore, I must admit I did get a bit upset by the rebuttal published to the James May article, and the discussions that followed. The article was written as part of his regular series in the motoring section of the Saturday Daily Telegraph in the UK. His brief is very broad, to write pretty much about anything, as long as it is vaguley related to cars but NOT specifically reviewing a car.

James May is a bright, insightful person, with a slight whimsical reserved British studied eccentricity. Yes, he poked fun at certain American habits but, at the end of the day, so what ? There are thousands of articles published every day that do this, and most are far more vitriolic. Is TTAC going to publish a rebuttal to all of these ?

The fact that James May and Telegraph, which targets a certain type of reader, decided to take this route may say something about them. The fact that TTAC felt that it had to launch a similiar styled, and far more vitriolic reply, struck me as stirring things up unnecessarily, just to raise jingoistic debate. The sadder fact that the readers of TTAC rapidly plunged into this with all fist flying…

Can’t we just stick to talking about cars, in a relatively sane and sensible way ? If you want to “discuss” why one country is better than another, or who is to blame for whatever war, then please do it somewhere else….

Sad to say, I too am biased against US cars–not because of any antipathy towards America or Americans, but because of my experience with Fords, Chevys and Chryslers. They cost less to buy than their imported rivals, but the expense of keeping them running more than made up the difference. And come trade-in time, the reputation earned by their shoddy quality translated into heavy depreciation.

Today, cars are generally much more reliable, and the difference on average between better and worse cars has shrunk. Detroit (well, at least Ford and GM) products have improved dramatically. But it takes time for reputation to catch up to reality. “Made in Japan” once had the same connotations as “Made in China” today. It took time for the Japanese to earn their reputation, and it will take time for GM and Ford to re-earn theirs. Customers like me who have been screwed by Detroit will not return so quickly.

Detroit’s current focus on restoring quality is not the only dynamic at work. Carmakers are not monolithic entities. Websites like TTAC that hold Detroit’s feet to the fire are critical to any hope of Detroit’s future success.

I found figures similar to this on a web site advocating immigration control. I also found other figures elsewhere that show different data. The hard part is knowing the birthrate per woman among the illegal immigrant population, since we don’t know how many illegal immigrant women there are. Where I do see agreement is on the Mexican birthrate. The immigrant case looks murkier. But let’s go with your assumption there is a verifiable gap for now. If that population gets on a wealth ramp — and they largely are — this will take care of itself.

That would be fine with me if the world weren’t using resources at a well-beyond sustainable level.

The old “Era of Limits” handwringing again. 35 years ago we were projected to be in famine and out of oil by now. Worry less, please. We have a lot of waste still to wring out of global consumption. American distributional efficiency spread elsewhere by itself can solve alot of problems associated with alleged “unsustainability.” We only have to manage another 3 billion people before population peaks. We’ll get through it.

And mass immigration makes the most deprived US workers poorer. From 1980-1995, the wages of US citizens who had not completed high school dropped by 30%; half of that was due to mass immigration according to the US National Academy of Sciences.
If you want to help the Mexicans, or citizens of other deprived countries help themselves and their countries, go to kiva.com and participate in microlending. Our taking in a couple million from those countries annually does nothing to help the people left behind, including the 80 million born into poverty every year.

We have a competitive system that doesn’t guarantee income short of welfare. Immigration has resulted in a net increase in domestic wealth, but some people fall behind if they are not willing to climb the ladder. I do agree that helping countries help themselves is the first line of defense against our country carrying too much of the load for the world’s ambitious, but people who have the gumption to seek a better way are generally going to keep looking for a way into the places that foster success. I already do participate in micro-lending and have been for over 20 years. Before that I have done the equivalent via personal connections and I’ve been a Peace Corps volunteer.

I’ve slept on a dirt floor of a hut and woken with a rat on my chest, or gone to sleep feeling the tap, tap, tap of flying cockroaches dive-bombing my flesh. I’ve killed my own food on land and sea. I’ve had amoebic dysentery alongside people trying to gain traction in their locale. But you know what? The really determined, the dreamers, the people who refused to be practical, kept their eye on how to get to the US because they were impatient and wanted to get going. Getting to the US is a filter. I now live in Los Angeles and see every day that the “lazy Mexican” is a myth, and Americans made poorer by their presence generally should be looking in the mirror for the reason.

The sun’s contribution to the current warming is quite small according to Holdren. The physics behind anthropogenic warming is indisputable. Holdren, among many other things, is a man of exceptional integrity.

The operative phrase there is “…according to Holdren…” His idea has expert detractors. The physics behind the greenhouse effect are indisputable, but that’s not the same thing as saying the physics of global warming are indisputable. We know of MANY things that warm and cool the climate, but we can’t model their complexity. We do know the planets climate has warmed and cooled on its own. The issue in contention is whether current warming is anthropogenic. People of high integrity disagree with Holdren; whether a majority or minority is irrelevant. Integrity isn’t correlated to being correct scientifically. You’ll notice that the majority of scientists retracting their support for AGW cite inability to correlate carbon content to what’s actually happening, as well as to what’s happened in the past before we (humans) were numerous enough to even be remotely considered a factor.

When the peer-reviewed journal articles start suggesting that humans are not causing climate change, I’ll believe it.

I know that’s your point-of-view. Have patience. Assimilating the continuing stream of new data into written works that go through peer review takes time. Peer review will catch up to the evolving evidence. In any case, I’d much rather see us use our time and wealth to get coping strategies in place for climate change, because climate change in one direction or another is constantly inevitable with or without our presence on the planet.

Phil

Worst were the claims shown to be wrong that weren’t rescinded.

What other claims? Might as well air them all out since Robert published this editorial.

FYI: I asked a GM public relations person to debate me on the financial facts of the GM Death Watch and where we got it wrong–I was actually trying to start a dialog–and I was met with a blank face and dead silence. Deafening silence, in fact.

TTAC wasn’t the only blog site to incorrectly report a second delay in the roadster schedule. Even the New York Times has reported it incorrectly. My gripe is Farago’s refusal to acknowledge or correct his mistake after it was pointed out.

Tony,

Granted I didn’t write the Tesla article(s) but reading your comment leaves me puzzled. What’s wrong with reporting “another delay” even if it was last year?

It was still a delay, right?

Counterpoint editorials (factual rebuttals) are usually welcomed here, so go ahead and un-spin what you don’t like. GM was given this offer (maybe its a standing offer) and they have declined.

If Robert let me write for this place, he’ll let anybody sound off. :)

Yours is not true. The birthrate of Mexican immigrants is about 3.1. The birthrate in Mexico is about 2.6.

The fact that someone comes here and “consumes like Americans” is OK with me. That means they’re doing better, likely to be recycling more, driving a cleaner-emitting vehicle, harboring less disease, getting educated formally or informally, and generally becoming more productive.

That would be fine with me if the world weren’t using resources at a well-beyond sustainable level.

I know of no experience from history where making people poorer accomplished anything positive, whereas the progressive consequences of wealth creation have been reliably beneficial.

And mass immigration makes the most deprived US workers poorer. From 1980-1995, the wages of US citizens who had not completed high school dropped by 30%; half of that was due to mass immigration according to the US National Academy of Sciences.
If you want to help the Mexicans, or citizens of other deprived countries help themselves and their countries, go to kiva.com and participate in microlending. Our taking in a couple million from those countries annually does nothing to help the people left behind, including the 80 million born into poverty every year.

(Me) And, by the way, John Holdren, last year’s head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science had already been worrying about global warming for a number of years in 1974, the year that the global cooling thing hit the papers.
Holdren might prove correct, might not. The evidence isn’t trending his way. But man-induced CO2 release isn’t going to be the determinate. Venus, by the way, might be warming. We do have empirical data from Earth, Mars and Uranus, including solar reflection corresponding to increased solar output.

The sun’s contribution to the current warming is quite small according to Holdren. The physics behind anthropogenic warming is indisputable. Holdren, among many other things, is a man of exceptional integrity.

By the way, here’s a link to a document detailing the reasons for an internationally dispersed group of scientists retracting their prior support for the idea of anthropogenic cause to climate change:
You don’t have to agree with them, but the diversity of expertise combined with the consistency of their reasons for loss of confidence in their prior conclusions, is a solid indicator that the facts are breaking down the alleged “consensus” on AGW.

On the contrary. It’s an example of the law of very large numbers at work. With thousands of scientists working in vaguely relevant areas, as well as truly relevant areas, and the climate change denial machinery on full bore (I have a relative who keeps sending me this sort of stuff), it would be surprising if you couldn’t find a dozen people with these kinds of views.
Furthermore, some of these people have platforms that aren’t really relevant to climate. Hans J.J. Labohm is an author and economist. He’s described in the Morano posting as a scientist, but unless Morano has forgotten to tell us what his other PhD is in (I’m assuming since he’s described as an economist, that’s where his PhD, if, indeed, he has that), he’s not an authority.
When the peer-reviewed journal articles start suggesting that humans are not causing climate change, I’ll believe it.

It was coverage of the Tesla Roadster that really drove it home to me. It came across as nothing less than a vindictive smear campaign. TTAC published a lot of negative speculation thinly disguised as journalism, plus a number of claims in those articles that had to later be rescinded as they were shown inaccurate and misleading.

Worst were the claims shown to be wrong that weren’t rescinded. In particular. . . TTAC claimed in August that the Roadster had suffered another delay in its schedule. This was clearly not referring to a new delay, but rather to the transmission change that Tesla had told us about way back in Dec 2006.

When Mr. Farago was challenged to explain the discrepancy, he ignored the question. Instead he announced he was standing by his report — but he made no effort to explain it or provide any sources, justification or explanation.

That’s unfair.