you dont need a ford excursion or a chevy suburban to buy groceries or move the family around in the early 1970s, my aunt did that just fine with a toyota corona wagon, probably got at least 30 mpg and was a nice car. she was neither left nor anti-family http://www.tolis.ch/toyo_modelle/1971_corona_mark_ii_wagon_2.jpg what's 'anti-family' is needlessly blasting the family grocery bill sky high
gnome, whatever happens to the country....make sure your don't stop taking your meds, if you are taking any...
I guess what I'm saying is four people in a Suburban provides more utility/conservation than 1 guy commuting in a Civic. The same way that a public trans bus might only get 8 miles a gallon while belching smoke but at the end of the day it's efficiency is undisputed. Hence EPA regs based on vehicle fuel economy alone are a half baked idea.
I wonder what Benny boy is going to say about inflation next time. Its still "well-anchored"? LOL. And the economy doesn't look like it will go into recession and all that jazz. America, there is little inflation, we will rescue you, money will come raining down out of the sky, the dumb Chinese will buy debt yielding 2% so we can buy more of their cheap crappy imports. Yay! Its a virtuous cycle.
Seems OBVIOUS to me "what's going to happen to the US".... unless there are major, MAJOR changes in government, money, and business policies. My guess is that little will change until there is a SEVERE crisis (maybe more than one).... and by then it will likely be too late. Is ethanol a med?
yea but most people drive their suburban by themselves. Why don't you do a study informing us of average 'people/car hours' with varying vehicles. I doubt the average suburban is 4:1 with people vs a civic when calculated across all use. More like 1.3:1 (or some other similar arbitrary ratio).
Pakistan? that's a long way from here. I'm in Costa Rica, Central America. Regarding Illegal immigrants: Illegal immigrants are illegal simply because there's a law that puts that label on them. Most of them come seeking a job, just like any other immigrant. They don't pay taxes simply because they're not allowed to do so. Such a law doesn't stop immigrants from traveling up north, it simply stops them from paying taxes. The intention of the law was to stop immigration [or to limit it] in order to limit the supply of workers to factories and inflate wages... an economic imbalance was created. Migratory flows [legal or illegal makes no difference] are the sustainable because there is a profit to be made both on demand and supply sides; from correcting the economic imbalance. Workers from Mexico want higher wages than the Mexican companies pay, and industrials in the US want cheaper wages than US workers are willing to accept. Migratory flows will continue for as long as the imbalance persists and there is a profit to be made. This is because markets are ruled by natural laws and pay no regard to the laws of men. The migratory flow has 2 parts. One that is dependent on workers and the other is dependent on industrials. The migration of workers, that is relatively easy to contain, you can build a wall and get a few rednecks to watch it. This migratory flow attempts to correct the imbalance by increasing the supplying labor. The second part of the migratory flow is dependent on companies that fly over the wall and go to where the immigrants are originating from, taking the jobs with them. This is known as outsourcing. As technology advances this becomes more difficult to contain, and more specialized and higher paying jobs are moved out. This trend started with factory jobs, that required little or no skill, but now the trend is moving towards knowledge creating jobs. Neither of this 2 flows is going to stop as long as there is an imbalance. Imposing higher restrictions on the entry of immigrants and building higher walls, will only give strength to outsourcing. Limiting the ability of companies to outsource their services will only lead to companies incorporating offshore and further fiscal damage, or European companies getting ahead of the game as they're able to outsource while US companies can't.
the problem is, how to have maximum solution with minimal intrusion into people's live. 'what used' is a hell of a lot less intrusive than 'how used'. with today's available technology (gps etc) a 'how used' conservation plan could become a complete police state, monitoring the citizen's every move for 'conservation purposes only' i still think vehicle standards are the way to do it, again, a family doesnt need a suburban where would we be today, energy wise, if the giant sport utility craze never happened? we'd be a hell of a lot better off. what did we really gain, vs what did it really cost? did it make us more, or less free? (massive immigration doesnt help either) BOTH parties are to blame