Defining a 'Patriotic American' Auto Manufacturer

[tw]

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/12/business/12HOND.html
Honda is the only major automaker that has not joined the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the industry trade group that has led the fight against tougher fuel and emissions standards.

[Nic Name]

http://civichybrid.honda.com/landing.asp

Are you suggesting that tougher fuel consumption and emission standards are unpatriotic?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this link under this thread title.

[elSicomoro]

Nic, I believe the title is sarcasm, as the big 2 are in the AAM.

[Undertoad]

Tougher emissions standards? It's pretty clean now; what do they want, to be able to breathe the stuff coming out of the tailpipe?

I think you read it wrong.

Honda is the only one who <b>has not</b> joined the fight <b>against</b> tougher emissions standards. As in, our buddies at Ford are unpatriotic.

[SteveDallas]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Tougher emissions standards? It's pretty clean now; what do they want, to be able to breathe the stuff coming out of the tailpipe?

Please, Tony, don't tell me you haven't heard about the effort to introduce airborne soporific drugs into tailpipe emissions so that people will mellow out and not question the government so much??

[tw]

Originally posted by Nic Name
Are you suggesting that tougher fuel consumption and emission standards are unpatriotic?

We know today's vehicles are high polluters. We know this because of the air (see that Image of the Day picture) and because cars consume (waste) so much gasoline (energy). Then instead of looking at the overall numbers, spin doctors would have us compare percentages of pollutants of 1970.

We know that current technolgy is not being used by so many automakers. For example, instead of making cars lighter, they lied; claiming that lighter cars are more dangerous. Instead of making cars with standard fuel economy, they installed 1960 technology engines to sell trucks as cars - to avoid 1990 technologies.

Name a patriotic American. Ben Franklin? Why? He invented things like eye glasses. Discovered things like electrcity. He set new standards for international diplomacy. Created publications. In short, he innovated. He advanced mankind. He pushed out the envelope. He is a benchmark for an 'American patriot'.

An American president subverts the government, lies to the people, promotes an oversea war based on lies and coverups. Is this an American patriot? Of course not. Did he innovate? Did he advance mankind. Did he push out the envelope. Questoned is what we define as an 'American patriot'. Nixon never qualified.

'American partriots' are not those waving a flag. 'America patriots' need not even have American citizenship or have ever visited America. The principals of America are innovation, advancement of mankind, and going where no man has gone before. A classic example of an 'America patriot' is Madame Currie - born in Poland and lived in Fance. She set new standards for science (and women). That is the real defintion of an 'American patriot'.

An 'American partiot' car company would be innovating. It is the anti-American turn in Ford Motor company that resulted in those violent fights between Jacque Nasser (stifle innovation) and William Clay Ford (advance mankind). All cars can easily obtain low emmissions - and higher gas mileage that means even lower emmissions - and still make a profit. That is what Honda does. 'American patriotic' car companies innovate. They have no problem exceeding yesterday's standards - which is what all great Americans must do.

When I started driving, standard large cars with V-8s did 18 MPG. Today's large cars, of same weight, don't even do that! Is that what an 'Amnerican patriot' would advocate? Of course not. We have gone back to the myopia of the 1970s. Too many actually accept the status quo - as the enemies of America have done throughout history. Some are actually fooled into thinking that cars currently have low emissions. Cars emit less than 1970 BUT they consume more energy and must do years 2000 standards. An 'American patriotic' car manufacturer routinely demonstrates that low emissions and higher mileage is current technology - despite outright lies from a Republican Congressman who says otherwise.

Let's move on to what will be the next arguement. If we made low emission, high mileage vehicles, then automakers could not earn profits. Honda is listed in JD Powers latest survey as the lowest cost manufacturer in the world. Why? Lower emssions and high mileage has proven all through the 1900s to mean that cars cost less to build. 'American patriots' understood this long ago. They are the innovators who made America great. These facts should be common knowledge to those who aspire to be 'American patriots'.

Some people are naive - brainwashed by purchased politicians who again say, "If we increase gas mileage standards, then we will all have to drive Pintos". While fools said this, 'American patriots' designed standard size cars that now get mileage equal or exceeding to a Pinto - about 21 MPG. Is this good enough? Not according to the definition of an 'American patriots' because patriots never stop pushing out the envelope. - advancing mankind.

It's telling that Honda's profits last year were four times that of GM, even though Honda's revenues were less than one third that of GM. Whereas Honda is innovating and pushing the envelope (Insight, the new hybrid Civic we're supposed to be seeing soon, higher-quality cars), GM is resting on decades-old laurels.

tw's right on the money with this one, though I think a better term could be chosen than "American Patriot". That having been said, those who drive high-emissions, low-mileage vehicles certainly aren't helping the country by increasing our dependance on foreign oil and ensuring that more and more taxpayer dollars will be pumped into cleanup and prevention of a problem (high emissions) that has, for all intents and purposes, already been solved - yet continues to plague us to this day.

[Undertoad]

Of course, had Mr. Franklin consulted the kite-flying regulations, he would have been seen that his act of flight during inclement weather was quite illegal.

To suggest that innovation can be prodded along via regulation is to ignore the very nature of innovation. It isn't rigidly controlled; in fact, it seems the more rigid the control, the less innovation. Innovation follows unexpected routes; when everyone is looking down one path, it finds a skew path that works better. Regulation, meanwhile, demands that we stay on the SAME path.

Regulation of efficiency is weird, too. Firstly, it's trying to address a problem that we don't know whether we have. Since a gallon of gas is cheaper than a gallon of branded water, we obviously do not have an oil scarcity problem.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
To suggest that innovation can be prodded along via regulation is to ignore the very nature of innovation. It isn't rigidly controlled; in fact, it seems the more rigid the control, the less innovation. Innovation follows unexpected routes; when everyone is looking down one path, it finds a skew path that works better. Regulation, meanwhile, demands that we stay on the SAME path.

In general, true. But let's review history. In the late 1960s, all domestic US automakers were halting innovation. The great advances of the 1950s and 60s - automatic transmissions, valves that rotated so as to not fail, turbine engines, stratefied charge, fuel injection, sterling cycle, power steering, disk brakes, variable valve timing, electronic ignitions, front wheel drive, etc - were driven to a halt by 1970s. Safety features available in the 1930s were not even used by some GM models until as late as 1992.

Automakers went before Congress in late 1960s claiming that 1974 pollution standards were not possible, when Chrysler already had a test fleet running in CA. The man from Chrysler responsible for much of those early innovations (CAP) was, instead, quashed by automaker top management - banned from all SAE meetings.

Regulation is not about requiring innovation so much as it has been about empowering the innovators. Congress mandated fuel mileage standards that helpled save the American auto industry - by empowering car guys at the expense of bean counters. Congress mandated EPA standards that empowered innovators outside the industry to create new technologies. In particular I am thinking of emmission systems developed by Exxon - that GM bean counters refused to consider because 'it was not invented here'. He told me the story - personally. Regulation made those anti-Americans inquire about and eventually purchase that Exxon innovation.

Unfortunately some industries get and deserve more regulation. Need we mention energy trading as example?

Regulation can be anti-innovative - such as the super intelligent decision by George Jr to protect the steel industry - so they could stop innovating for another 40 years. It is not regulation that is or is not the problem. It is whether the industry gets the regulation it deserves.

The auto industry is falling back to an anti-America attitude so prevelant in the 1970s. If we don't require them to innovate, then we must also remove all laws intended to protect those domsetic industries. Clearly those protections will not be removed from the industry. Therefore, and unfortunately, an industry with a long history of turning anti-American must be confronted with laws that empower their car guys at the expense of the bean counters.

In an industry where innovation thrives, regulation is all but non-existant - computer industry. However in one that has stifled innovaton - telcom industry - the 1996 Communiation Act was necessary. Without that act, xDSL still would not exist because baby Bells fear to pioneer new technologies and AT&T fears all new technologies. The computer industry slump is do, in part, to stifled innovation inthe telecom industry. Unfortunately, we did not regulate them enough so that their monopoly priced competition out of existance.

Regulation cannot be uses as a blanket cure all. It is a surgical tool that is, unfortunately, necessary to keep mafia and bean counter mentalities from stifling the innovators.