Scroggs, fine work. You know I like the MkI Escort and the 3.0 Cs a lot. There are these nice Alfa´s and Capri´s and there is even a Citroen SM at 2:10.
Look at all these cars and you know why we do like em, there was no dictation from wind tunnels and not as many goverment nanny safety rules. This made it possible that the cars then had their own personallity.
I love that 300SEL... it's just a shame it ate tires like popcorn. 400 horsepower and two tons of German schteel has a habit of doing that.
Yesterday, I saw a well-kept '65-'67 230S "fintail" down on my local street. It was white with a red interior, and it had the floor-shifted four-speed. I explained to my girlfriend that I want to get one and turn it into a rally car; she looked at me like I was crazy. I'll have to show her this video.
Whoa, those were the days. The entire pit row looked like tons of random people were just milling around. I don't understand much German, but I did hear the word "gearbox".
The biggest problem here is that the report is from the Cato Institute and based on the landmark ruling in the case of their positions vs history, I'm shocked that anyone gives them any credit or pays them any mind.
That being said it does appear that you quoted the most agreeable portion of the article. The problem being that The Cato Institute is simply being disingenuous by implying that they care about poor people in developing countries.
@Voyou_Charmant: I misspoke, they do care about poor people in the developing world. They care by lobbying in support of trade agreements that let US companies exploit those people by providing unsafe and poorly paid manufacturing jobs.
There are tax incentives for people to do lots of things; buy homes, get married, have kids, donate to charity, invest, save for retirement, etc... Why is buying a new car any different?
Furthermore, it isn't only the car buyer; its the dealerships and their employees, it's the auto companies and their employees, part suppliers, etc.., it's finance companies writing loans, insurance companies writing new policies... The list could go on an on depending on how far down the line you would like to go.
It always, for whatever reason, surprises me how simple some people's understanding of really anything is. I can only assume it's rooted in some anti-understanding, anti-context, anti-knowledge philosophy I'm just not aware of.
Besides the unsourced bullshit "the energy required to manufacture a car accounts for as much as 45% of its lifetime energy consumption", Mr. Aiyar is doing the typical lameass rhetorical argument of pretending to propose a solution that will never happen. There was nothing stopping a businessman shipping American clunkers to third world countries for profit. It's economical for criminals to do it from Germany, but that is irrelevant to an American program. So what exactly is he proposing -- a government program to export our clunkers, thereby damaging the used car market elsewhere?
You can tell he's uncomfortable with his own arguments. "So replacing old cars with new ones requires a big up-front energy investment." Duh, and the consumption of the USA auto fleet goes down. Mission accomplished.
The government just wants to get the major gas guzzlers off the street, so in a few years when they jack up the gas tax, they can say it's because cars are so fuel efficient we're not burning as much gas as we used to, but we're still wearing the roads out. That's been the goal all along, but better to make the evil car manufacturers take the fall now than for politicians to not get re-elected today for hiking the gas tax to curb gas consumption.
This way most of the used cars trickling down to poor folks in the future will be fairly fuel efficient, so there won't be so much flak flying about the poor paying an unfair share of an increased gas tax, because "fortunately" our wise government had the foresight to cull all the guzzlers from the system before this happened.
Yeah, I kind of agree that the cars should've been given to poor people instead of destroyed, unless they were obviously unsafe or would not pass emissions.
A free (or heavily discounted) car would allow poor people to get a job that riding the bus or walking would not normally allow them to get.
So while the CARS program benefited the middle class immensely (ie those who can afford, or nearly afford a new car), the lower classes were left without any real benefit.
10/04/09
The Grauls/Hoffmann Camaro
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/03/09
Look at all these cars and you know why we do like em, there was no dictation from wind tunnels and not as many goverment nanny safety rules. This made it possible that the cars then had their own personallity.
10/03/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
I love that 300SEL... it's just a shame it ate tires like popcorn. 400 horsepower and two tons of German schteel has a habit of doing that.
Yesterday, I saw a well-kept '65-'67 230S "fintail" down on my local street. It was white with a red interior, and it had the floor-shifted four-speed. I explained to my girlfriend that I want to get one and turn it into a rally car; she looked at me like I was crazy. I'll have to show her this video.
10/04/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
Also: Minichamps makes a 1:18 scale replica of the Benz, if you (like me) are into that sort of thing.
10/03/09
10/03/09
whaaaa? FWD?
Apparently.
10/03/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
09/26/09
[www.youtube.com]
09/02/09
That being said it does appear that you quoted the most agreeable portion of the article. The problem being that The Cato Institute is simply being disingenuous by implying that they care about poor people in developing countries.
09/02/09
08/31/09
Using tax payer dollars to bail out people cause the car they owned was obsolete.
In that case they should buy all the old shitty energy leeching TVs and electronics from people.
09/02/09
There are tax incentives for people to do lots of things; buy homes, get married, have kids, donate to charity, invest, save for retirement, etc... Why is buying a new car any different?
Furthermore, it isn't only the car buyer; its the dealerships and their employees, it's the auto companies and their employees, part suppliers, etc.., it's finance companies writing loans, insurance companies writing new policies... The list could go on an on depending on how far down the line you would like to go.
It always, for whatever reason, surprises me how simple some people's understanding of really anything is. I can only assume it's rooted in some anti-understanding, anti-context, anti-knowledge philosophy I'm just not aware of.
08/31/09
You can tell he's uncomfortable with his own arguments. "So replacing old cars with new ones requires a big up-front energy investment." Duh, and the consumption of the USA auto fleet goes down. Mission accomplished.
08/31/09
Just remember the kinds of cars produced in the highly successful Socialist paradises of the 20th century - Ladas and Trabants.
Now that Fiat owns Chrysler, maybe we can get our own version of the Fiat 128.
08/31/09
You know, like with agriculture.
09/02/09
08/31/09
This way most of the used cars trickling down to poor folks in the future will be fairly fuel efficient, so there won't be so much flak flying about the poor paying an unfair share of an increased gas tax, because "fortunately" our wise government had the foresight to cull all the guzzlers from the system before this happened.
08/31/09
A free (or heavily discounted) car would allow poor people to get a job that riding the bus or walking would not normally allow them to get.
So while the CARS program benefited the middle class immensely (ie those who can afford, or nearly afford a new car), the lower classes were left without any real benefit.