TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- California Sues Big Six Automakers,
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Here's the link by the way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJAlrYjGz8

Geez ... I just assumed you guys heard about this.

EDIT: Above is just trailer, here's some videos on this, but the one I purchased way way better:

part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgmJl579Pz0

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYaM0dOynzs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW42f-uTz7I

part 3

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium LOL, What kind of a response is that to something I said like this: Do I have to spell out that I BELIEVE in video "Who Killed Electric Car"? Did I say here's a tidbit of information and I am right with regardless to what your opinion is? No, I just STATED my opinion. I didnt mention any of that crap like I am better than all of you or whatever, thats WHAT YOU THINK.

I said hint at, meaning word choice, structure etc.. I guess that went over your head, and i've been reading some of your other replies and they were just as short and lacking substance. Yes we know what the movie is about, and surely many people here have watched it, but it doesnt really contribute anything does it? Now, if your opinion is

quote:

All I got to say is .... "Who killed electric car?" And you should know what I think/believe. I am referring to the now famous video ...

^^ This really doesnt say anything, and not everyone knows what that video is, but a phrase like "you should all know what i think" just smells of smugness. So yes, even if your not saying anything on superiority your word choice and how you phrase your structures reek of an im right attitude. It was just a heads up, no need to get all excited about it.

Instead of getting into detail, I just stated that my entire view on this topic is summarized in the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

Thats is.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Instead of getting into detail, I just stated that my entire view on this topic is summarized in the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car?" Thats is.

No worries man sorry to come off as if i were picking a fight, its all good anyways.

In that case, sorry if I overexagerrated this whole thing, if II took it the wrong way. I need to work on my speech a little more, the keyboard is tooo small on laptops

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: California Sues Big Six Automakers,

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Admittedly I am not familliar with AB 1493, but I will say that this is much like tobacco litigation (which drives me up the wall). Automakers don't cause emissions--people who drive their cars do. If the people of California are soo concerned about global warming and emissions standards, why haven't they chosen to drive greener cars? Similarly, cigarette makers don't force people to smoke and therefore aren't directly responsible for causing cancer--yet they are sued for billions despite the big warning label on packs of smokes that says "THIS IS BAD FOR YOU."

Well I thought they were sued for stuff like putting physically addictive chemicals in their product and acknowledging that fact in their internal memos along with directly marketing their product towards underaged audiences .... please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall alcohol makers ever being successfully sued to the remote extent that tobacco companies have been.

Furthermore, state legislation has been able to effectively curb hazards to third party victims of cigarrette smoke by eliminating its use in public areas. So why don't you tell me how legislators can accomplish the same health benefit without damaging people who need cars as a part of their livlihood? This goes back to the earlier scenario I raised ... factory A contaminates a river used by people downstream. How do we hold factory A accountable for using a public resource? How is this not a market externality, it's the very defintiion of one. You can't tell people to NOT drive, because our government or capitalism has failed to provide a substantive alternative ... the very reason why one can consider this situation a market externality.

quote:

Actually there is a lot of evidence (certainly several studies as I read one recently) that suggest that external factors such as weather that are not specifically tied to productivity are a major driver behind sustained economic growth. I wish I could remember the study, but it was mentioned in the context of some Asian/Pac-Rim countries--possibly Vietnam or Singapore or somewhere like that. California contains some of the most fertile farm land in North America, is one of the biggest states in the union, has some of the best weather, has the largest stretch of coastline of any single state--yet I sense that you are being dismissive of these externalities as a positive influence on California's production. Maybe I just mis-read you as I'm not certain if this argument is staying on topic.

Well so what about much of South America? Stagnant western Europe? Can you reference said studies? I haven't seen any notable economists make a note of weather as a meaningful driver for economic performance and I would like to dig into said studies in detail because I find such a theory to be ludicrous.

quote:

There is--it's called when consumers use their power of pocketbook to NOT buy an environmentally unfriendly vehicle. If you truly believe in efficient markets, it doesn't take a massive, frivolous lawsuit to create change, rather it takes a change in consumer behavior. IMHO, suing the automakers over emissions won't do much to change consumers' behavior. They'll likely just pay a little more for their next SUV and feel good about the fact that they punished some big, evil corporation.

In an oligopoly market the consumer can't excercise use of their pocketbook to make choices. The primary reason why hybrids have become so popular is because the price of gasoline has risen so much. And I'm sure I can find the pretty graphs to back my point up. The point, is that it's still NOT economical to purchase environmentally friendly vehicles. And whilst you or I may have the luxury of making that decision, I doubt that the vast majority of America have that ability. Hence, the entire rationale for litigation to correct for an inefficient oligopoly. Do you really think the automotive industry has been a bastion for competition that has reasonably served the consumer?? FFS why don't you explain how an efficient market believed that seatbelts wouldn't sell for decades until legislators and consumer advocates pushed for regulation demanding manufactureres install seat belts?? The auto industry is RIFE with all sorts of fuckups such as these. But hey, I guess that all this consumer litigation and advocacy for regulation was wrong because consumers didn't make their choices with their pocketbooks ...

quote:

And I'm on board with the first part--it's a similar idea to Warren Buffet's plan to elimiate the trade deficit. Regulating and creating guidelines or issuing credits/changing the system will certainly work better than a lawsuit that ultimately benefits lawyers and hurts consumers. The legal system is a poor channel to use to institute positive change. I think if it is ever to be used, it should be done so as a last resort, and that is why I disagree with your seemingly glib statement that this "indeed is the best path to go down."

Sorry if I beg to differ, but I differ from a first hand perspective. I'm an ops risk manager and legal decisions have some the MOST influence on our oversight of my company than nearly any other factor. I also participate in industry working groups and know that every other financial institutions, that I have worked with, would agree.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: California Sues Big Six Automakers,

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So why don't you tell me how legislators can accomplish the same health benefit without damaging people who need cars as a part of their livlihood? This goes back to the earlier scenario I raised ... factory A contaminates a river used by people downstream. How do we hold factory A accountable for using a public resource? How is this not a market externality, it's the very defintiion of one. You can't tell people to NOT drive, because our government or capitalism has failed to provide a substantive alternative ... the very reason why one can consider this situation a market externality.

I don't think I'm in so much disagreement with you as I feel like we're sidestepping my point. I'm not opposed to better regulation, I just see the act of "suing for damages" as something that accomplishes little if anything towards our desired end of reducing harmful emissions. If we know for a fact that emissions are causing the problem then there is no need to go through a dog and pony show in a courtroom, creating a ton of legal fees and damage rewards that ultimately compensate lawyers and take funds out of the system that could be used on environmental R&D in order to make actual improvements in CAFE, emissions standards, etc. Why does something that essentially amounts to grandstanding seem so much more effective to you than simply demanding and enforcing tougher regulations? Is it the lobbying force of the auto industry that makes you think that such change without a lawsuit is an impossibility?

quote:

Well so what about much of South America? Stagnant western Europe? Can you reference said studies? I haven't seen any notable economists make a note of weather as a meaningful driver for economic performance and I would like to dig into said studies in detail because I find such a theory to be ludicrous.

I thought it was from a piece I had read by John Mauldin that dealt with things like output gap, but going through the last few pieces I don't see what I was specifically referring to. I think the bottom line of the piece was that productivity gains alone cannot lead to sustained economic growth; rather factors like resource abundance, climate, demographics, etc...were all pertinent to maintaining long-term growth. When the copper mines of Chile peak and roll-over, Chile's economic growth will certainly stagnate, no matter how good their workers are at mining an incremental chunk of copper ore. The point is simply that there are factors above and beyond the fold that greatly impact things like economic growth and stability. Perhaps it is less relevant to this discussion than I thought, but I certainly don't find it to be a ludicrous conclusion. Similarly one could argue that trial lawyers in the U.S. have done better than they otherwise might've simply given the increasingly litigiuos nature of our society over the last 25 years. Outside forces to matter.

quote:

In an oligopoly market the consumer can't excercise use of their pocketbook to make choices.

Sure they can. They may have fewer alternatives, but the last I checked we still lived in a free society. "can't" and "generally doesn't" have very different meanings.

quote:

The primary reason why hybrids have become so popular is because the price of gasoline has risen so much. And I'm sure I can find the pretty graphs to back my point up. The point, is that it's still NOT economical to purchase environmentally friendly vehicles. And whilst you or I may have the luxury of making that decision, I doubt that the vast majority of America have that ability. Hence, the entire rationale for litigation to correct for an inefficient oligopoly.

Right. It would be far too complicated and expensive for someone who really cares to drive a more economical car, motorcycle, segway, scooter, bicycle, etc. They have the power to make a decision if they really want to, it's just far too convenient to go with the plan A and then sue that manufacturer for "forcing" you to drive his non-efficient transport. I think the numerous alternative modes of transportation and innovative new modes of more efficient transportation speak volumes about real consumer behavior.

quote:

Do you really think the automotive industry has been a bastion for competition that has reasonably served the consumer??

Is their sole purpose to serve consumers? If they are profitable, they are obviously making products that consumers are demanding. If, as you say, people must drive, then yeah, the industry is serving them quite well.

quote:

FFS why don't you explain how an efficient market believed that seatbelts wouldn't sell for decades until legislators and consumer advocates pushed for regulation demanding manufactureres install seat belts??

Amazing how regulation is much more effective than frivolous lawsuits. How many lawsuits against manufacturers over seatbelts caused a seachange in behavior in the 70's and 80's? Rather increased regulation and the prospect of being pulled over and given a $500 ticket for not wearing a seatbelt has surely had a significant impact in getting more people to buckle-up.

quote:

The auto industry is RIFE with all sorts of fuckups such as these. But hey, I guess that all this consumer litigation and advocacy for regulation was wrong because consumers didn't make their choices with their pocketbooks ...

Again--I'm not against better, more effective regulation. However, I am against using a lawsuit to get us there (at least as a frontline strategy). I said above it should be a last-resort.

quote:

Sorry if I beg to differ, but I differ from a first hand perspective. I'm an ops risk manager and legal decisions have some the MOST influence on our oversight of my company than nearly any other factor. I also participate in industry working groups and know that every other financial institutions, that I have worked with, would agree.

Awesome. You must have a lot of lawyer friends. Guess we have something in common.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: California Sues Big Six Automakers,

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't think I'm in so much disagreement with you as I feel like we're sidestepping my point. I'm not opposed to better regulation, I just see the act of "suing for damages" as something that accomplishes little if anything towards our desired end of reducing harmful emissions. If we know for a fact that emissions are causing the problem then there is no need to go through a dog and pony show in a courtroom, creating a ton of legal fees and damage rewards that ultimately compensate lawyers and take funds out of the system that could be used on environmental R&D in order to make actual improvements in CAFE, emissions standards, etc. Why does something that essentially amounts to grandstanding seem so much more effective to you than simply demanding and enforcing tougher regulations? Is it the lobbying force of the auto industry that makes you think that such change without a lawsuit is an impossibility?

Well can you cite any meaningful steps in federal regulation to curb emissions in the automobile industry in the past few years? Are the courts not a means to rectify a lack of progress on this standpoint?

quote:

I thought it was from a piece I had read by John Mauldin that dealt with things like output gap, but going through the last few pieces I don't see what I was specifically referring to. I think the bottom line of the piece was that productivity gains alone cannot lead to sustained economic growth; rather factors like resource abundance, climate, demographics, etc...were all pertinent to maintaining long-term growth. When the copper mines of Chile peak and roll-over, Chile's economic growth will certainly stagnate, no matter how good their workers are at mining an incremental chunk of copper ore. The point is simply that there are factors above and beyond the fold that greatly impact things like economic growth and stability. Perhaps it is less relevant to this discussion than I thought, but I certainly don't find it to be a ludicrous conclusion. Similarly one could argue that trial lawyers in the U.S. have done better than they otherwise might've simply given the increasingly litigiuos nature of our society over the last 25 years. Outside forces to matter.

Would you dispute that productivty gains played a large role in sustaining corporate profits and the economy through the past several years? I mean nearly every other factor remained constant with the exception of the housing bubble that was a big enabler for consumer spending. I simply don't find the "weather" as a compelling economic argument nor have I read any economist who would either. But hey if you can reference anything I would love to read it.

quote:

Sure they can. They may have fewer alternatives, but the last I checked we still lived in a free society. "can't" and "generally doesn't" have very different meanings.

And you're sidestepping my point. In an oligopoly there exists market externalities where it becomes prohibitively unattractive to correct for said market inefficincies through market forces alone. Hence the entire reason why monopolies and oligopolies are inefficient from a free market perspective. Yes it's "possible" to use market forces to punish oligopolies but the whole point is that the market isn't going to do such a thing because that's not what markets do when confronted with an oligopoly. I don't understand what you're trying to say, are you saying that economic theory behind oligopolies is wrong? Otherwise how do you expect such an externality to fix itself? You above all people should know that people make decisions based on their pocketbook and that doesn't always yield Pareto optimality ... hence the entire science behind public finance.

quote:

Right. It would be far too complicated and expensive for someone who really cares to drive a more economical car, motorcycle, segway, scooter, bicycle, etc. They have the power to make a decision if they really want to, it's just far too convenient to go with the plan A and then sue that manufacturer for "forcing" you to drive his non-efficient transport. I think the numerous alternative modes of transportation and innovative new modes of more efficient transportation speak volumes about real consumer behavior.

Come on now. You or I can afford to make those conscious choices since we're both white collar workers who need vehicles simply to commute. There are plenty who can't afford the premium for a hybrid vehicle. There are plenty who need pickups or SUVs for their jobs and can't do their jobs with "motorcycles" or "bicycles". There are those with family constraints and need a minivan. The point is is that only now is an environmentally friendly vehicle possible (at a price premium) ... a few years back you had to settle for a hatchback, and a few years before that it was impossible. Meanwhile when was the last time federal regulation set gas mileage standards?

quote:

Is their sole purpose to serve consumers? If they are profitable, they are obviously making products that consumers are demanding. If, as you say, people must drive, then yeah, the industry is serving them quite well.

Dude ... c'mon now. What is the whole point of privatization? Well fuck, let's nationalize everything, make sure it's profitable, and wave flags at what a great job we're doing.

quote:

Amazing how regulation is much more effective than frivolous lawsuits. How many lawsuits against manufacturers over seatbelts caused a seachange in behavior in the 70's and 80's? Rather increased regulation and the prospect of being pulled over and given a $500 ticket for not wearing a seatbelt has surely had a significant impact in getting more people to buckle-up.

Agreed and what do you think is a major catalyst for legislation? Come now you have that much faith in our politicians?

quote:

Again--I'm not against better, more effective regulation. However, I am against using a lawsuit to get us there (at least as a frontline strategy). I said above it should be a last-resort.

So please explain how the federal government is adequately addressing this issue? Furthermore don't we have judges, appeals courts, and supreme courts for a reason?

quote:

Awesome. You must have a lot of lawyer friends. Guess we have something in common.

No. I hate laywers. DC is a city full of lobbyists, laywers, and consultants. They're all scum. Many of my friends are in law school however ... once they graduate I guess I'll have to disown them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: California Sues Big Six Automakers,

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well can you cite any meaningful steps in federal regulation to curb emissions in the automobile industry in the past few years? Are the courts not a means to rectify a lack of progress on this standpoint? Yes the courts are a means--I have just been trying to establish that I don't view them as a frontline solution. I'd rather see problems addressed and solutions offered outside of and independent of the legal system where possible. A specific example (though not in the U.S. yet to my knowledge, and one that an econ professor in college advocated) is a variable toll rate on toll roads whereby cars travelling at peak traffic times are forced to pay higher tolls. Fits the economists' solution of making people pay more for something when it is more desireable. There was a recent article published on the impact a system like this has had in Sweden--less traffic and as a byproduct, less air pollution. Personally, I don't like the idea of paying more for the same trip depending on the time of day, but I cannot dispute the evidence that it has thus far been an effective tool. [quote]Would you dispute that productivty gains played a large role in sustaining corporate profits and the economy through the past several years? I mean nearly every other factor remained constant with the exception of the housing bubble that was a big enabler for consumer spending. I simply don't find the "weather" as a compelling economic argument nor have I read any economist who would either. But hey if you can reference anything I would love to read it.

*sigh* Since I cannot reference the specific piece I read from I am unable to site the source at this time. However, I would point out that I suggested more than simply "the weather" as necessary conditions to sustain long-term economic growth. I thought the Chile example was instructive and was more than just a "weather" event. I'll keep looking for the original article since you seem so adamant about your position.

quote:

And you're sidestepping my point. In an oligopoly there exists market externalities where it becomes prohibitively unattractive to correct for said market inefficincies through market forces alone. Hence the entire reason why monopolies and oligopolies are inefficient from a free market perspective.

In theory. And I'm not questioning the theory, however theory and reality are often quite different when you throw irrational/unpredictable consumer behavior into the mix. Also--while an oligopoly may be inefficient as you say, can you make the point that a court resolved solution is the most efficient solution?

While we're at it, I'm almost tempted to raise the specific question of oligopoly vs. cartel as I think one yields considerably more power over consumers than the other.

Again, I don't dispute economic theory, however in my experience I've found that practical experience is often quite different. Lastly, I'd point out that the auto industry is much further from oligopoly status today than it was just 5-10 years ago. Yes, a few major players are still quite prominent and influential, but by and large the playing field is a far cry from what it was a short while ago.

quote:

Come on now. You or I can afford to make those conscious choices since we're both white collar workers who need vehicles simply to commute. There are plenty who can't afford the premium for a hybrid vehicle. There are plenty who need pickups or SUVs for their jobs and can't do their jobs with "motorcycles" or "bicycles". There are those with family constraints and need a minivan. The point is is that only now is an environmentally friendly vehicle possible (at a price premium) ... a few years back you had to settle for a hatchback, and a few years before that it was impossible. Meanwhile when was the last time federal regulation set gas mileage standards?

Okay, okay. But do we really need a massive lawsuit to get the increase in CAFE? I guess with the powerful auto lobbyist presence in DC it can never be ruled out--I simply maintain the position that it is unfortunate for that to be plan A instead of plan C or D (Don't ask me what Plan B is).

quote:

Dude ... c'mon now. What is the whole point of privatization? Well fuck, let's nationalize everything, make sure it's profitable, and wave flags at what a great job we're doing.

Wasn't my point and I cringe at the thought of nationalization! Maybe it came off a bit glib, but you can't say that the industry is NOT serving the consumer. That's being a bit heavy-handed.

quote:

Agreed and what do you think is a major catalyst for legislation? Come now you have that much faith in our politicians?

Well no. Touche.

quote:

So please explain how the federal government is adequately addressing this issue? Furthermore don't we have judges, appeals courts, and supreme courts for a reason?

In an ideal world I guess I just prefer to view our courts deal more with criminal behavior and it's still not clear to me that anyone has done anything criminal.

quote:

No. I hate laywers. DC is a city full of lobbyists, laywers, and consultants. They're all scum. Many of my friends are in law school however ... once they graduate I guess I'll have to disown them.

lol. I don't trust a single one of my lawyer friends, but it's good to know low people in high places!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.