Jump to content


The Best Car Ever Tested?


  • You cannot reply to this topic
155 replies to this topic

#141 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,767 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:14 PM

 

The difference is that all of those advances were made by private investment in a free market system. The incentive was to make a better, more economical mouse trap so that consumers would want to buy it. There was no waste of tax dollars by the government propping up technologies that were not yet ready for the market.

 

Leave the alternative energy industry alone and let it find a way to make a profit by producing an economical product and things will progress a lot faster.

 

And now I'm going to go watch the Cup race from Darlington and leave you greenies to keep on dreaming!  :D

 

 

Hard to see the TV with your head in the sand. ;)

 

Some KNOWLEDGE of history is also often useful when forming opinions supposedly BASED on history, or when making pronouncements ABOUT history.

 

Just two huge examples of many that contradict your position:

 

1) The development of aviation was largely subsidized and funded by governments. The U.S. Army bought Wright Flyers when they weren't much beyond curiosities, and U.S. Mail carrier contracts helped to spur further development as did continuing military utilization of unproven aircraft.

 

2) Hoover Dam, using many novel techniques unproven at the time, was a joint Federal / private-enterprise project, and paid for itself well ahead of schedule.

 

And BOTH solar and wind energy are approaching grid-cost-parity WITHOUT subsidization.


Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 11 May 2013 - 02:15 PM.


#142 mini trucker

mini trucker

    MCM Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Location:Guelph
  • Full Name:Ryan Ess

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:34 PM

I love lamp



#143 1930fordpickup

1930fordpickup

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,033 posts
  • Location:Michigan/Ohio border
  • Full Name:Andy Lemble

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:39 PM

 

The difference is that all of those advances were made by private investment in a free market system. The incentive was to make a better, more economical mouse trap so that consumers would want to buy it. There was no waste of tax dollars by the government propping up technologies that were not yet ready for the market.

 

Leave the alternative energy industry alone and let it find a way to make a profit by producing an economical product and things will progress a lot faster.

 

And now I'm going to go watch the Cup race from Darlington and leave you greenies to keep on dreaming!  :D

What is NASA to you then Drew ? LOL

I just think it is crazy  that they only missed 1 point from a grading system.  



#144 2002p51

2002p51

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 717 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN
  • Full Name:Drew

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:34 AM


 

1) The development of aviation was largely subsidized and funded by governments. The U.S. Army bought Wright Flyers when they weren't much beyond curiosities, and U.S. Mail carrier contracts helped to spur further development as did continuing military utilization of unproven aircraft.

 

Kinda splittin' hairs there.

 

The government was a CUSTOMER of the aviation industry, just like you or I might be a customer of the automotive industry when we buy a car. The government publishes specs of an airplane they'd like to buy and aircraft companies compete for that business. The cost of the R&D for that aircraft is spread out through the contracted price of each aircraft. The government wasn't artificially "subsidizing" an industry, they were buying products that they wanted and needed.

 

That's very different from the government using tax dollars to prop up a company that's operating in the red and ultimately goes bankrupt.

 

And NASA, Andy, works the same way. All of their launch vehicles, the space shuttle, etc. are built by contractors that won the business through the competitive bid process. NASA is a customer buying products they need.



#145 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,767 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 13 May 2013 - 12:30 PM

 

Kinda splittin' hairs there.

 

The government was a CUSTOMER of the aviation industry, just like you or I might be a customer of the automotive industry when we buy a car. The government publishes specs of an airplane they'd like to buy and aircraft companies compete for that business. The cost of the R&D for that aircraft is spread out through the contracted price of each aircraft. The government wasn't artificially "subsidizing" an industry, they were buying products that they wanted and needed.

 

That's very different from the government using tax dollars to prop up a company that's operating in the red and ultimately goes bankrupt.

 

And NASA, Andy, works the same way. All of their launch vehicles, the space shuttle, etc. are built by contractors that won the business through the competitive bid process. NASA is a customer buying products they need.

 

You're contradicting yourself and don't seem to realize it, and your position shifts to accommodate your argument. The early aircraft were completely unproven technology, and had the U.S. NOT bought what were basically experimental examples on speculation that the tech would mature into something useful, the early aircraft companies WOULD have gone bust. NOT like "you or I" buying a car, a fully-developed technology, AT ALL.

 

Your position on NASA is also ridiculous. What the space program has returned on investment is REAL-WORLD utilization of technologies developed for TOTAL-LOSS programs like going to the moon, ALL of it experimental at the time. And the x-plane programs were and are still funded in large part as blue-sky R&D with NO immediately foreseeable practical uses, NOT by private industry "building a better mousetrap". The X-planes have NO practical use, but the knowledge they've added has inestimable value to mankind as a whole.

 

I'll agree that the recent spate of "green" companies propped up artificially by the Bamallama administration, and now nothing but holes in the taxpayer's pockets, is rather unfortunate, but it comes NOT from the impropriety of government subsidizing fledgling technologies, but rather from a SCIENTIFICALLY and TECHNICALLY IGNORANT government (voted into power by a scientifically and technically ignorant electorate) backing the WRONG horses in the race.


Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 13 May 2013 - 01:14 PM.


#146 CrazyGirl

CrazyGirl

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 737 posts
  • Location:Mass
  • Full Name:Anne Smith

Posted 13 May 2013 - 12:47 PM

the best car tested ,, I would say a Yugo , followed by the Austin Marina :blink: 



#147 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,560 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 13 May 2013 - 01:37 PM

the best car tested ,, I would say a Yugo , followed by the Austin Marina :blink: 

 

You been sniffin' glue?   :lol:



#148 CrazyGirl

CrazyGirl

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 737 posts
  • Location:Mass
  • Full Name:Anne Smith

Posted 13 May 2013 - 01:40 PM

I think I was back in 1975 :lol:  when I was like the only sucker to buy the Austin Marina , bought it new for I think 3,500 dollars , sold it 6 months later for 500 , it would not go more than 25 miles w/out breaking down , what a nightmare that was



#149 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,560 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 13 May 2013 - 01:41 PM

I think I was back in 1975 :lol:  when I was like the only sucker to buy the Austin Marina , bought it new for I think 3,500 dollars , sold it 6 months later for 500 , it would not go more than 25 miles w/out breaking down , what a nightmare that was

 

And were you also suckered into buying a Yugo?



#150 CrazyGirl

CrazyGirl

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 737 posts
  • Location:Mass
  • Full Name:Anne Smith

Posted 13 May 2013 - 01:43 PM

oh heck no lol



#151 Joe Handley

Joe Handley

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,380 posts
  • Location:We-Go, Chitown, Ill
  • Full Name:Billy Joe

Posted 13 May 2013 - 03:35 PM

Was that the comment from the Yahoo article on John Lennon's Ferrari going up for auction?

#152 Darin Bastedo

Darin Bastedo

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,559 posts
  • Location:Kingsport TN

Posted 07 October 2013 - 04:59 AM

We will never have an alternative to gas, until certain people stop politicizing science. It is time we start investing more in educating our citizenry, and less in wall street, Invest more into our infrastructure and less on policing the world. and start electing the smartest people instead of those who are the prettiest and play to our egos. 

 

our need for energy is constantly increasing while our resources are dwindling and the costs of those resources are increasing. Finding a way to reverse that trend is paramount. The key to those answers is scientific exploration. That process  inevitably will result in some level of failure, as have all new scientific advances. To criticize that effort because 100% success is not achieved is short sighted. It took Edison 100's of attempts to invent the light bulb. Now it is an integral part of our lives. Alternative energy will be the same way.



#153 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,767 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:21 AM

We will never have an alternative to gas, until certain people stop politicizing science. It is time we start investing more in educating our citizenry, and less in wall street, Invest more into our infrastructure and less on policing the world. and start electing the smartest people instead of those who are the prettiest and play to our egos. 

 

our need for energy is constantly increasing while our resources are dwindling and the costs of those resources are increasing. Finding a way to reverse that trend is paramount. The key to those answers is scientific exploration. That process  inevitably will result in some level of failure, as have all new scientific advances. To criticize that effort because 100% success is not achieved is short sighted. It took Edison 100's of attempts to invent the light bulb. Now it is an integral part of our lives. Alternative energy will be the same way.

 

Bravo, sir. Well said.



#154 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,560 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 07 October 2013 - 03:57 PM

If only we could invent a car that runs on hot air. Then we'd finally have a use for our federal government!   :lol:



#155 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,767 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:52 AM

If only we could invent a car that runs on hot air...

 

...or bull exhaust... :)



#156 Joe Handley

Joe Handley

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,380 posts
  • Location:We-Go, Chitown, Ill
  • Full Name:Billy Joe

Posted 08 October 2013 - 08:17 AM

...or bull exhaust... :)


If that can in some way turned into ethanol alcohol, my 200 will burn it!

If only we could invent a car that runs on hot air. Then we'd finally have a use for our federal government!   :lol:


Install some sort of wind turbines in and around the legislative branch buildings, at campaign stops, debates, ect............probably could power the entire state if Iowa just on what the Iowa Caucuses would produce for a long, long time!